Well, Happy Victoria Day to you all. Say what you want about the monarchy or whether we should still be celebrating the life of someone who was born in 1819, but hey, it's nice not to have to go into the office, so I'll be happy to continue singing "God Save The Queen" and continue to support our British-style parliamentary system.
So my wife, kids and I were going to spend the day at a local conservation area, where I was going to get in hopefully a decent day of fishing and enjoying the outdoors and creation. Unfortunately, with very strong winds outside and nippy temperatures (my son and I went out to play baseball this morning and he needed mitts after a while - he was the batter), we thought we'd nix the idea. Besides, casting in windy weather is no fun. So we stayed indoors today and my wife played cards while my son watched his newest Veggie Tales DVD and my daughter slept. Well, the deck of cards we used was from the Pizzaville pizza chain, and of course, their advertising worked, since my wife and I got the strange idea that we should order in pizza for lunch. Besides, with the pizza order, I had an opportunity to get a free sleeve of Maxfli Fire golf balls for virtually nothing. My wife brought home the pizza and stuff, and we also got a free newspaper (Toronto Sun - not into the tabloidish trashy style, but hey...) Anyhow, I thought that I'd peruse the complimentary newspaper and see what was happening this weekend in the world.
Well, right on the front of the newspaper was a caption depicting a tragedy on the waters this long weekend in Richmond Hill. It piqued my interest, so I read the article. The details are interesting to note: on Saturday morning, at 1:30AM (that's AM), three young guys went out in a canoe, after a night of drinking and fireworks. The canoe ended up flipping over, and only one of the three swam to shore - the other two are presumed dead. Interviews with loved ones and friends followed, and the tone of the story seemed to want to get the reader to feel sorry for these two guys who presumably lost their lives in an tragedy, and a preventable one at that. I finished the story and turned to my wife, who was downing her coffee, and I said, "do you feel sorry for these guys?" I know I don't. Forget the fact that you drank before going on a boat in the middle of the night. These three clowns weren't even wearing lifejackets. And the boat wasn't theirs - it was taken from a bunch of boats that a neighbour warned them not to take.
I mean, what am I supposed to feel here? Sympathy? Hardly. It's their stupidity that led to their deaths. Of course, in the interviews with friends and families, the two missing canoeists were cited as "role models" and "ideal citizens". I tell you, I've known enough people in my life who engage in this kind of stuff, and it's nothing short of immature and irresponsible. Yeah, it sucks that two of them likely died, but this is sort of how the way the world works - you engage in risky behaviour - you should be prepared to endure the consequences. You reap what you sow.
I flip the page some more...and read about another tragedy that happened in the Toronto area. Three young girls (teenagers) were killed in a car crash on a country road. Of course, tributes pour in, saying how bright and beautiful (as if that makes a difference) they were and how smart they were. Were they? Cops investigating the incident say that these girls driving on a country road decided to make a U-turn, at which point a tractor trailer plowed into them. Now, who does a freaking U-turn on a country road? Sure, it's possible, but it's risky. Unfortunately, the girls paid with their lives. But I'm not sure why people, when being interviewed are blaming God for this - a woman said "how could God do this?" to which a pastor responded "I am honest when I say I do not know". What's God have to do with any of this? They made the choice to make this U-turn. I mean, if I were to run a red light, I know that there is always a chance I'll get into an accident. If I do that, I have to accept the consequences. If I die as a result, I don't expect, nor do I want, people to feel sorry for me and sad for me.
Years ago, my wife and I went to one of the biggest, if not the biggest, provincial park in Ontario. It was awesome going to it - it was like an hour or so driving from one end of the park to the other. Anyhow, my wife and I decided to go canoeing at one point - I can't swim, but she could, but regardless, we both wore life jackets. I did know, however, that there was always a chance my lifejacket my malfunction and given the right conditions, the boat could flip and I could die. I accepted that risk, as low as it was. About 20 minutes into our canoeing, big storm clouds darkened the sky and thunder and lightning started appearing. I nearly shat my pants as I feverously paddled back to shore (which was very far away), all the while hitting rough waters and waves, while I was barking rowing instructions to my wife. That canoe almost tipped over a couple of times, and I was so freaked out since I did not know how to swim. I knew that the risk of something happened to me just increased, but after a while, we managed to get back onto shore. I could have risked staying in the boat, but neither one of us accepted that risk in those conditions.
The next morning, we see police boats and divers near our campsite (which was near the water). They were obviously looking for something, and as it turns out, they were looking for someone. In turning on the news on the radio in our car, we realized that someone had apparently drowned. Story is that it was a young guy, who was camping as part of a honeymoon with his new wife. Both were in their very early 20s. As the report goes, at one point he stood up in his canoe, while his wife was on the beach, and he was flexing muscles or something like that, standing in the canoe. He did not have a lifejacket on. The canoe flipped over and he fell into the water, at which point his panicked wife called for help. They weren't able to locate him until the next day (we, unfortunately, had the misfortune of seeing the police divers drag what appeared to be a human body onto the boat and then covered it up. That was pretty disturbing. I feel for his new wife, but come on, what did you think would happen?
It's incidents like this that prove to me that the true tragedy here is that all of these deaths could have been prevented, with just a bit of common sense, and observing standard safety practices. We are all going to die one day; it's just a shame to hear of senseless deaths like this which could have been easily prevented.
EDIT 5/20/2008: So this morning, on the way to work, I hear about a fatal accident occuring about 7 minutes from my home, last night. A minivan was going 160KM/hour in a 60KM/hour zone. ????!!???? The driver, a 17-year-old, died in the accident when the van hit a lightpost, a tree, and then rolled over several times. His passengers all sustained serious injury. Thankfully no innocent bystanders or other drivers were hurt. I'm glad this guy died - at least that's one dangerous driver permanently off the road. And I'm sure his three surviving friends all learned a valuable lesson as well.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Self-Defence / Home Defence - A Response
After my last post on home defence options, I received three emails that had opposing positions. Two of the respondents questioned whether I was being way too paranoid - after all, we do live in Canada, while the other emailer was nothing short of what I would consider a trigger-happy individual, who seemed to be relishing the opportunity to shoot someone. I certainly hope that that was not the impression my post relayed - it was not my intention, and I think that only the most liberal interpretation of my post would signify that. Anyway, while I could have simply responded to the three commenters by email, I thought it would be more beneficial to address the issues raised by another post. It would also help me to formulate and perhaps cement my own positions on these areas. I won't bother rehashing the previous post found here
but rather, I want to look at some of the resulting opinions.
First, let's look at the paranoia argument, since 2 of the 3 emails said that I was being a bit too paranoid. The two folks who wrote me about this were in essence arguing several things, which I will briefly try to summarize here:
1) this is Canada, supposedly a much more peaceful country and gun culture is not as ingrained here as it is in the U.S., where their Constitution not only assures them, but guarantees them the right to bear arms. The "Castle Doctrine" (essentially a British concept that says that one's home is their castle and as such, if their personal living space is breached, one has the right to defend it, even using lethal force to do so. The Castle Doctrine is highly ingrained in U.S. thinking about personal property and such; not so much in Canada.
OK, I can appreciate this point. However, I would contend that it would be fairly naive for us as Canadians to assume that we are subject to a different degree of crime here; that somehow level and nature of crime does not justify using lethal force. There have been enough cases of heinous crimes in Canada to make me realize that our country is not that much different than our U.S. neighbours. Sure, we don't have the crime-ridden ghettos that they do, but in the big cities in Canada, they are there and home invasions, break-ins, and burglaries are more than commonplace. Even in the suberbs, where supposedly it is "safe" and a false sense of security is established, murders and robberies do happen, and they are increasing in frequency once criminals realize that those living in the burbs are not exactly living on welfare. Plus, my viewpoint has always been that as long as there are humans there, the potential for crime will always be there. Don't think that all the crimes are committed by rough looking gang-bangers. That assumption has led many a person to be shocked to find that their investment banker neighbour who is a father of four is actually a pedophile behind closed doors.
2) Is lethal force really necessary? Can't you just incapacitate the intruder? What about the psychological and legal fallouts?
Is lethal force necessary? You tell me - I don't presume to know your situation. I can tell you that I'd consider it an absolute last resort. In fact, I hope I never come across this situation. But I can say one thing that I've resolved in my own mind. I would not resort to lethal force unless my life or the life of my family was in danger. Some gun nuts have put lethal force as their primary response, and I think there's a real danager in that - for one, it reveals to me a trigger-happy attitude, and a lack of value for life. Also, the typical blase response regarding lethal force being a primary response would indicate that they haven't really thought it through, but rather have been watching too many violent movies. Anyway, if I came home and found dude ransacking my house and taking my meager possessions off my property, I'd call the cops, but in no way would I confront them with legal force. Truth be told, I'm not all that attached to material things. However, a cold burglary is far different than a live home invasion, as I have discovered in researching this topic. Burglaries generally involve one criminal, who will break into your house when you are not there (generally daytime or when they know you are on vacation or away - they are after your stuff and generally have no intention of hurting you). Home invasions, on the other hand, are usually committed by several criminals, who are more than likely armed, and the intent is not so much to steal your possessions as it is to terrorize you in one of many ways. It could involve kidnapping, but in many cases it involves rape, sexual assault, and murder.
Now, that being said, if you advocate a wait and see approach, and I tend to agree in principle, although probably not in practice, what would happen if you assume the best, that it they just want your stuff, but they are intent on breaking in and raping your wife, or your kids? What are you going to do when you are tied by and beaten silly, if not killed, while your family is at the mercy of these animals? And, by the way, you do have your taser or firearm or bear spray, but it's not exactly within reach since you assumed you'll never need it? Not sure if the tradeoff of your life or the life or your loved ones is worth the risk of not being prepared. Something to think about.
Now, consider this. Obviously, no one wants to kill anybody, if they can help it. But let's consider the alternatives here. Incapacitating a criminal is fine...if there is only one of them, and you know how to properly do it. What if, in the case of a home invasion, there are a group of them? Are you seriously planning to give each of them a whack with your baseball bat or golf club? Or taser? Even if you have a knife, you'd have to get in close to do damage - are you trained for that? The odds are against you if it's you against a group. What if they are armed? Your baseball bat will do little. And if you spray your bear spray on one of them and he is down, you can be sure his buddies will be pretty pissed and will pummel you to death if you run out of bear spray (which you will).
The psychological and legal effects. This is a real concern, particularly for those of us who live in Canada, which, for all intents and purposes, is not a gun-friendly country. I recently was corresponding with someone on a forum who experienced a home invasion and he wrote that while he and his brother were able to take down the intruder and hold him for the police to arrive, in the end, both him and his brother were charged with aggravated assault and were treated like criminals, even though it was the home invader who should have received all of the punishment. Unfortunately, that does not surprise me about the lenient and very liberal Canadian justice system. Anyhow, yes, you will have to be prepared to deal with the fallout. As for the psychological effects - I've never been there so I can't say (and hopefully never have to be tehre), but let's face it, when snipers take out a criminal or a soldier takes out an enemy, they receive heavy psychological counselling afterwards. I guess if I were to say anything, it would be that because my sole criteria in using lethal force is if my life or the life of my family was threatened, I can definitively conclude afterwards that I exhausted all my other options.
3) Why not set up an alarm system? Or call the cops? Or get a dog?
This is a multi-part question, which I've happened to condense into one summary question. Getting a dog is one of the options I propose. Now, I know that animal lovers out there may take especial exception with my using a dog for utilitarian purposes; but be that as it may, I don't think pet owners own their pets for no reason. Most want a pet for companionship, others want a pet to keep up with others who also have a pet, others use pets to help them get around (ie. guide dogs for the blind), while others will have a pet (a dog, in particular) to give them a sense of security. I don't have a problem with this, so if you do, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, a dog is great in terms of both a deterrent and an actual self-defence tool. If you are edgy about potentially shooting someone or whacking them with a baseball bat, a dog is your answer.
The other parts of the question. Alarm systems. They are OK, and generally are a deterrent to a criminal (either the criminal will be discouraged by the alarm system and will hit another house, or will try twice as hard to defeat it, thinking that the alarm is guarding something valuable). However, I have learned to not rely on an alarm system, even though I have one. For one, phone lines can always be cut. That is major downside of phone-line based alerting (unless the alarm company by default sends the cops to your house if the phone line signal is breached - I don't know any who do that). Second, alarm companies make mistakes too. Most times that I have had a false alarm, the cops show up (that's what I pay them separately for, as part of my alarm package). Once or twice, however, the cops do not show up, even though my alarm was wailing for quite a while. The alarm company doesn't even call me. That has been the exception, but you don't want to be in an exception situation during a home invasion and learn the hard way.
The cops. Yes, calling them is fine, assuming they respond quickly (in 2005, when the schitzophrenic lady showed up at my door one evening on a Saturday, it took the cops 5-7 minutes to show up - if she was armed, I would have been dead by then). If guys are about to kick down your door with weapons in hand, you'll be dead by the time the cops show up. And not to mention my previous point about the phone lines being cut. OK, so most people have cell phones. Most, but not all. And even if you do, your cell phone's battery or signal can die at the most inopportune time (trust me, it's happened to me). I guess what I am saying is that while it's nice to have that peripheral service available, it should not be relied upon as the sole first response. It should be in conjuction with an overall home defence plan.
Now, even if the cops show up - then what? What would the intruder get? In Canada, it'd be a slap on the wrist (in Canada, the maximum sentence you can get for cold blooded murder is 25 years, but you can be let out early for good behaviour). With Canada's "catch and release" type of revolving door justice, your home invader will be out in no time, and guess who he will be gunning for first, since you were the one who put him there? You'd be living in fear for the rest of your life, or who have to move to an undisclosed new location?
4) Fear begets fear. You are contributing to a non-trusting society.
That is fine, since I don't trust society anyways. It is way too idealistic to think that nothing bad will happen to you in your lifetime. Even if you are a person who trusts that God will protect you, God has also given you a brain. If you have life insurance or wear a lifejacket when boating, it is not a mistrust in God that allows you to do these things, but it is utilizing the sense or common sense that He gave you, since He did not make you to be a robot. As for fear - it would be rather naive to think that the world has become a better, safer place than it was 50 years ago. I remember my sister telling me 15 years ago or so that she was home from school one day, not feeling that great. So she lay in bed to rest in the afternoon, and was all by herself. She heard the front door knob jiggle. My Mom and Dad were both confirmed to be at work, and my brother and I were both confirmed in school. Any one of our friends would not jiggle our doorknob (they would ring the doorbell). My sister told me that the doorknob was turned and then jiggled and then it sounded like something (a key or perhaps a pick) was inserted into it and jiggled again. She was petrified. If that had been my Mom, she would have been hiding in a corner. I don't forget stuff like that, nor do I forget things like my garage door being ajar or open even though we're not home...and my wife and I didn't open it. I take a lot of precautions now when I get home at night, even though I have a motion sensor alarm in my residence. I sweep the house normally and have my hand on my Buck hunting knife that I conceal on me at all times. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be prepared and never have to use my planned response, than to need to respond appropriately but I am grossly unprepared. People can call me paranoid or whatever, but if it keeps me alive and not at the mercy of some punk intending to cause me harm, so be it.
Now, let's turn our attention to the respondent who I found to be a bit too trigger happy. His/her response disturbs me far greater than the other two who thought I was overthinking these things. I'll now address his/her views in order:
1) Once an invader gets into your home, they have forfeited their right to live.
I don't agree with this in full. Again, I make a distinction in terms of why they are in my house. If they broke in when I wasn't here, and I arrive to find them moving my printer to their van, I'll call the cops but if I had lethal means at my disposal, I won't use it unless they threaten my life. I think it's a shame to automatically assume you'll pull the trigger for anyone unwanted who comes into the door. However, I understand the reasoning behind this, and like I said, in a home invasion, you won't have that luxury of careful deliberation insofar as the motives of the criminals. However, if I think much discretion needs to be taken. I'd much rather call the cops from a neighbour's home and observe the licence plate or details of the robber, rather than confront him/her. If it's a home invasion and my sense is that I will need to grab a firearm, I'd rather shoo them away with it or hold them until the cops show up (but this also introduces further complications, not the least of which is the fact that you may be setting up a return engagement once they get out from behind bars, which inevitably happens in Canada).
2) Shoot to kill, don't shoot to wound.
Again, I disagree in part with this. First, any jury (especially in Canada) who hears you talking about shooting to kill, will no doubt brand you a gun-toting, trigger happy crack-head. I can't say that I would disagree with the assessment. Shooting someone should always be a last resort, and one which is taken after all avenues are exhausted. At the very least, your goal should be to shoot to stop the attacker. If that ends up killing him/her, well, you'll need to deal with that.
I also want to (slightly) revisit the whole wounding vs. killing thing. Most home defence "experts" will say to use ammo which is graded to penetrate into the perpetrator's vital organs. Which is why birdshot and a shotgun is considered ineffective, as its penetration is not as deep (it is used to shoot birds, after all). If nothing else, you'll leave a grievous wound, to which the perp may succumb later...or not. Large buckshot will penetrate organs and likely kill the attacker. Wounding may come back to haunt onself later, if the liberal court system puts that wounded criminal on the stand to talk about his life of suffering. But I think that once you are seriously wounded, you probably will steer away from home invasions in the future. Plus, if the criminal turns his/her life around as a result (which has happened), you'll be glad you didn't kill them. You can always take out their knees or something so at the very least, you'll know you are not taking their life, but they will not be able to perform any more invasions, even after they are released, as they will be.
3) Forget guns - use your whole arsenal against the (expletives) - throw IEDs, grenades, blow them to pieces.
I think a person who thinks like this should lay off the video games and / or the violent TV shows. Sounds to me that someone wants to kill for killing's sake. If this person has a firearms licence, it should be revoked. And maybe they need to be psychiatrically evaluated. It's as if they take great pleasure in seeing a human blown to bits. There's nothing glorifying, heroic or justifiable in that, in my opinon. That's all I'll say to that.
but rather, I want to look at some of the resulting opinions.
First, let's look at the paranoia argument, since 2 of the 3 emails said that I was being a bit too paranoid. The two folks who wrote me about this were in essence arguing several things, which I will briefly try to summarize here:
1) this is Canada, supposedly a much more peaceful country and gun culture is not as ingrained here as it is in the U.S., where their Constitution not only assures them, but guarantees them the right to bear arms. The "Castle Doctrine" (essentially a British concept that says that one's home is their castle and as such, if their personal living space is breached, one has the right to defend it, even using lethal force to do so. The Castle Doctrine is highly ingrained in U.S. thinking about personal property and such; not so much in Canada.
OK, I can appreciate this point. However, I would contend that it would be fairly naive for us as Canadians to assume that we are subject to a different degree of crime here; that somehow level and nature of crime does not justify using lethal force. There have been enough cases of heinous crimes in Canada to make me realize that our country is not that much different than our U.S. neighbours. Sure, we don't have the crime-ridden ghettos that they do, but in the big cities in Canada, they are there and home invasions, break-ins, and burglaries are more than commonplace. Even in the suberbs, where supposedly it is "safe" and a false sense of security is established, murders and robberies do happen, and they are increasing in frequency once criminals realize that those living in the burbs are not exactly living on welfare. Plus, my viewpoint has always been that as long as there are humans there, the potential for crime will always be there. Don't think that all the crimes are committed by rough looking gang-bangers. That assumption has led many a person to be shocked to find that their investment banker neighbour who is a father of four is actually a pedophile behind closed doors.
2) Is lethal force really necessary? Can't you just incapacitate the intruder? What about the psychological and legal fallouts?
Is lethal force necessary? You tell me - I don't presume to know your situation. I can tell you that I'd consider it an absolute last resort. In fact, I hope I never come across this situation. But I can say one thing that I've resolved in my own mind. I would not resort to lethal force unless my life or the life of my family was in danger. Some gun nuts have put lethal force as their primary response, and I think there's a real danager in that - for one, it reveals to me a trigger-happy attitude, and a lack of value for life. Also, the typical blase response regarding lethal force being a primary response would indicate that they haven't really thought it through, but rather have been watching too many violent movies. Anyway, if I came home and found dude ransacking my house and taking my meager possessions off my property, I'd call the cops, but in no way would I confront them with legal force. Truth be told, I'm not all that attached to material things. However, a cold burglary is far different than a live home invasion, as I have discovered in researching this topic. Burglaries generally involve one criminal, who will break into your house when you are not there (generally daytime or when they know you are on vacation or away - they are after your stuff and generally have no intention of hurting you). Home invasions, on the other hand, are usually committed by several criminals, who are more than likely armed, and the intent is not so much to steal your possessions as it is to terrorize you in one of many ways. It could involve kidnapping, but in many cases it involves rape, sexual assault, and murder.
Now, that being said, if you advocate a wait and see approach, and I tend to agree in principle, although probably not in practice, what would happen if you assume the best, that it they just want your stuff, but they are intent on breaking in and raping your wife, or your kids? What are you going to do when you are tied by and beaten silly, if not killed, while your family is at the mercy of these animals? And, by the way, you do have your taser or firearm or bear spray, but it's not exactly within reach since you assumed you'll never need it? Not sure if the tradeoff of your life or the life or your loved ones is worth the risk of not being prepared. Something to think about.
Now, consider this. Obviously, no one wants to kill anybody, if they can help it. But let's consider the alternatives here. Incapacitating a criminal is fine...if there is only one of them, and you know how to properly do it. What if, in the case of a home invasion, there are a group of them? Are you seriously planning to give each of them a whack with your baseball bat or golf club? Or taser? Even if you have a knife, you'd have to get in close to do damage - are you trained for that? The odds are against you if it's you against a group. What if they are armed? Your baseball bat will do little. And if you spray your bear spray on one of them and he is down, you can be sure his buddies will be pretty pissed and will pummel you to death if you run out of bear spray (which you will).
The psychological and legal effects. This is a real concern, particularly for those of us who live in Canada, which, for all intents and purposes, is not a gun-friendly country. I recently was corresponding with someone on a forum who experienced a home invasion and he wrote that while he and his brother were able to take down the intruder and hold him for the police to arrive, in the end, both him and his brother were charged with aggravated assault and were treated like criminals, even though it was the home invader who should have received all of the punishment. Unfortunately, that does not surprise me about the lenient and very liberal Canadian justice system. Anyhow, yes, you will have to be prepared to deal with the fallout. As for the psychological effects - I've never been there so I can't say (and hopefully never have to be tehre), but let's face it, when snipers take out a criminal or a soldier takes out an enemy, they receive heavy psychological counselling afterwards. I guess if I were to say anything, it would be that because my sole criteria in using lethal force is if my life or the life of my family was threatened, I can definitively conclude afterwards that I exhausted all my other options.
3) Why not set up an alarm system? Or call the cops? Or get a dog?
This is a multi-part question, which I've happened to condense into one summary question. Getting a dog is one of the options I propose. Now, I know that animal lovers out there may take especial exception with my using a dog for utilitarian purposes; but be that as it may, I don't think pet owners own their pets for no reason. Most want a pet for companionship, others want a pet to keep up with others who also have a pet, others use pets to help them get around (ie. guide dogs for the blind), while others will have a pet (a dog, in particular) to give them a sense of security. I don't have a problem with this, so if you do, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, a dog is great in terms of both a deterrent and an actual self-defence tool. If you are edgy about potentially shooting someone or whacking them with a baseball bat, a dog is your answer.
The other parts of the question. Alarm systems. They are OK, and generally are a deterrent to a criminal (either the criminal will be discouraged by the alarm system and will hit another house, or will try twice as hard to defeat it, thinking that the alarm is guarding something valuable). However, I have learned to not rely on an alarm system, even though I have one. For one, phone lines can always be cut. That is major downside of phone-line based alerting (unless the alarm company by default sends the cops to your house if the phone line signal is breached - I don't know any who do that). Second, alarm companies make mistakes too. Most times that I have had a false alarm, the cops show up (that's what I pay them separately for, as part of my alarm package). Once or twice, however, the cops do not show up, even though my alarm was wailing for quite a while. The alarm company doesn't even call me. That has been the exception, but you don't want to be in an exception situation during a home invasion and learn the hard way.
The cops. Yes, calling them is fine, assuming they respond quickly (in 2005, when the schitzophrenic lady showed up at my door one evening on a Saturday, it took the cops 5-7 minutes to show up - if she was armed, I would have been dead by then). If guys are about to kick down your door with weapons in hand, you'll be dead by the time the cops show up. And not to mention my previous point about the phone lines being cut. OK, so most people have cell phones. Most, but not all. And even if you do, your cell phone's battery or signal can die at the most inopportune time (trust me, it's happened to me). I guess what I am saying is that while it's nice to have that peripheral service available, it should not be relied upon as the sole first response. It should be in conjuction with an overall home defence plan.
Now, even if the cops show up - then what? What would the intruder get? In Canada, it'd be a slap on the wrist (in Canada, the maximum sentence you can get for cold blooded murder is 25 years, but you can be let out early for good behaviour). With Canada's "catch and release" type of revolving door justice, your home invader will be out in no time, and guess who he will be gunning for first, since you were the one who put him there? You'd be living in fear for the rest of your life, or who have to move to an undisclosed new location?
4) Fear begets fear. You are contributing to a non-trusting society.
That is fine, since I don't trust society anyways. It is way too idealistic to think that nothing bad will happen to you in your lifetime. Even if you are a person who trusts that God will protect you, God has also given you a brain. If you have life insurance or wear a lifejacket when boating, it is not a mistrust in God that allows you to do these things, but it is utilizing the sense or common sense that He gave you, since He did not make you to be a robot. As for fear - it would be rather naive to think that the world has become a better, safer place than it was 50 years ago. I remember my sister telling me 15 years ago or so that she was home from school one day, not feeling that great. So she lay in bed to rest in the afternoon, and was all by herself. She heard the front door knob jiggle. My Mom and Dad were both confirmed to be at work, and my brother and I were both confirmed in school. Any one of our friends would not jiggle our doorknob (they would ring the doorbell). My sister told me that the doorknob was turned and then jiggled and then it sounded like something (a key or perhaps a pick) was inserted into it and jiggled again. She was petrified. If that had been my Mom, she would have been hiding in a corner. I don't forget stuff like that, nor do I forget things like my garage door being ajar or open even though we're not home...and my wife and I didn't open it. I take a lot of precautions now when I get home at night, even though I have a motion sensor alarm in my residence. I sweep the house normally and have my hand on my Buck hunting knife that I conceal on me at all times. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be prepared and never have to use my planned response, than to need to respond appropriately but I am grossly unprepared. People can call me paranoid or whatever, but if it keeps me alive and not at the mercy of some punk intending to cause me harm, so be it.
Now, let's turn our attention to the respondent who I found to be a bit too trigger happy. His/her response disturbs me far greater than the other two who thought I was overthinking these things. I'll now address his/her views in order:
1) Once an invader gets into your home, they have forfeited their right to live.
I don't agree with this in full. Again, I make a distinction in terms of why they are in my house. If they broke in when I wasn't here, and I arrive to find them moving my printer to their van, I'll call the cops but if I had lethal means at my disposal, I won't use it unless they threaten my life. I think it's a shame to automatically assume you'll pull the trigger for anyone unwanted who comes into the door. However, I understand the reasoning behind this, and like I said, in a home invasion, you won't have that luxury of careful deliberation insofar as the motives of the criminals. However, if I think much discretion needs to be taken. I'd much rather call the cops from a neighbour's home and observe the licence plate or details of the robber, rather than confront him/her. If it's a home invasion and my sense is that I will need to grab a firearm, I'd rather shoo them away with it or hold them until the cops show up (but this also introduces further complications, not the least of which is the fact that you may be setting up a return engagement once they get out from behind bars, which inevitably happens in Canada).
2) Shoot to kill, don't shoot to wound.
Again, I disagree in part with this. First, any jury (especially in Canada) who hears you talking about shooting to kill, will no doubt brand you a gun-toting, trigger happy crack-head. I can't say that I would disagree with the assessment. Shooting someone should always be a last resort, and one which is taken after all avenues are exhausted. At the very least, your goal should be to shoot to stop the attacker. If that ends up killing him/her, well, you'll need to deal with that.
I also want to (slightly) revisit the whole wounding vs. killing thing. Most home defence "experts" will say to use ammo which is graded to penetrate into the perpetrator's vital organs. Which is why birdshot and a shotgun is considered ineffective, as its penetration is not as deep (it is used to shoot birds, after all). If nothing else, you'll leave a grievous wound, to which the perp may succumb later...or not. Large buckshot will penetrate organs and likely kill the attacker. Wounding may come back to haunt onself later, if the liberal court system puts that wounded criminal on the stand to talk about his life of suffering. But I think that once you are seriously wounded, you probably will steer away from home invasions in the future. Plus, if the criminal turns his/her life around as a result (which has happened), you'll be glad you didn't kill them. You can always take out their knees or something so at the very least, you'll know you are not taking their life, but they will not be able to perform any more invasions, even after they are released, as they will be.
3) Forget guns - use your whole arsenal against the (expletives) - throw IEDs, grenades, blow them to pieces.
I think a person who thinks like this should lay off the video games and / or the violent TV shows. Sounds to me that someone wants to kill for killing's sake. If this person has a firearms licence, it should be revoked. And maybe they need to be psychiatrically evaluated. It's as if they take great pleasure in seeing a human blown to bits. There's nothing glorifying, heroic or justifiable in that, in my opinon. That's all I'll say to that.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Self-Centred West
I generally don't rant much about the West, since I grew up here, but I gotta tell ya, people living in North America (and by extension I think I can say Western Society in general, irrespective of geography) are so self-absorbed in their own little bubble that they don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the world, save some popular media or celebrity-highlighted causes, which seem fashionable, particularly to the youth of this generation.
You know, I don't really have much of a philosophical dichotomy when it comes to the value of life. Which is why I do not put people on a sliding scale of life worth - the death of a celebrity does not resonate any more with me than a death of an unknown homeless person. It wasn't always this way, but over the years, I've developed a real distaste for how North American culture focuses on such trite things, yet at the same time, have a scale of life-worth that essentially pits fame and fortune with innate value. Now, I am not some crazy new-age, feely-touchy type who will say that all life is valuable. Clearly that is not the case, with guys like Paul Bernardo and the guy in Texas on death row who is the next to be executed for his part in the brutal rapes and murders of two teenagers - to me, these guys aren't human. Rather, my contention is that in general, human life has value.
So obviously my heart grieves when I hear that 10,000 people were killed today in an earthquake in China, a large magnitude earthquake at that (7.8 on the Richter scale). I mean, if you look at 9/11, there was something like 2800 lives lost. That was sad, and continues to be. I can't even visualize that many people. And sure, it has greater shock value when life is deliberately taken by way of a terrorist act. You'd have to have been hiding in a cave (hopefully not Bin Laden's) to not realize that there was an inordinate amount of press and media coverage for 9/11 and the subsequent deaths that occurred. Yet, for all this coverage, you hear what would amount to passing news almost on a daily basis of people who are dying everyday in other parts of the world - and make no mistake, North America does not have a monopoly on terrorist activities. Whether it is suicide bombers in the Middle East killing innocent people, or those in developing country who are starving to death, while we sit in North America and bitch and moan about how our freaking Blackberries are down for a day, I really do think that the West has such a self-absorbed mentality that it fails to even register why the rest of the world hates us so much.
On many discussion boards, today's tragedy is given passable coverage. Could you imagine if this was in North America? CNN would have full-screen pictures with a tabloid style headline and people would stop what they are doing and chime in on how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Yet, when it's "them", that is people on the other side of the world, which for all intents and purposes, are different than you, or who have no real relation to you, geographic, political, or linguistic, then I guess the blase response would be, "well, these things happen", and worse, for those who tend to have a North American brainwashed mindset, coupled with some pretty ingrained religious beliefs, they simply chalk it up to "God's will" and something to do with the end times. It's almost as if there is a sort of acceptable resignation that these things happen and "oh well". Yet if this happened in Toronto, or New York, or L.A., or any manner of small towns in North America, it would be considered unnatural, a great tragedy, and you'd hear politicians blabbering away prayers and such for the victims. If it happens on the other side of the world, well...nobody gives a (fill in the blank here).
You know, I don't really have much of a philosophical dichotomy when it comes to the value of life. Which is why I do not put people on a sliding scale of life worth - the death of a celebrity does not resonate any more with me than a death of an unknown homeless person. It wasn't always this way, but over the years, I've developed a real distaste for how North American culture focuses on such trite things, yet at the same time, have a scale of life-worth that essentially pits fame and fortune with innate value. Now, I am not some crazy new-age, feely-touchy type who will say that all life is valuable. Clearly that is not the case, with guys like Paul Bernardo and the guy in Texas on death row who is the next to be executed for his part in the brutal rapes and murders of two teenagers - to me, these guys aren't human. Rather, my contention is that in general, human life has value.
So obviously my heart grieves when I hear that 10,000 people were killed today in an earthquake in China, a large magnitude earthquake at that (7.8 on the Richter scale). I mean, if you look at 9/11, there was something like 2800 lives lost. That was sad, and continues to be. I can't even visualize that many people. And sure, it has greater shock value when life is deliberately taken by way of a terrorist act. You'd have to have been hiding in a cave (hopefully not Bin Laden's) to not realize that there was an inordinate amount of press and media coverage for 9/11 and the subsequent deaths that occurred. Yet, for all this coverage, you hear what would amount to passing news almost on a daily basis of people who are dying everyday in other parts of the world - and make no mistake, North America does not have a monopoly on terrorist activities. Whether it is suicide bombers in the Middle East killing innocent people, or those in developing country who are starving to death, while we sit in North America and bitch and moan about how our freaking Blackberries are down for a day, I really do think that the West has such a self-absorbed mentality that it fails to even register why the rest of the world hates us so much.
On many discussion boards, today's tragedy is given passable coverage. Could you imagine if this was in North America? CNN would have full-screen pictures with a tabloid style headline and people would stop what they are doing and chime in on how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Yet, when it's "them", that is people on the other side of the world, which for all intents and purposes, are different than you, or who have no real relation to you, geographic, political, or linguistic, then I guess the blase response would be, "well, these things happen", and worse, for those who tend to have a North American brainwashed mindset, coupled with some pretty ingrained religious beliefs, they simply chalk it up to "God's will" and something to do with the end times. It's almost as if there is a sort of acceptable resignation that these things happen and "oh well". Yet if this happened in Toronto, or New York, or L.A., or any manner of small towns in North America, it would be considered unnatural, a great tragedy, and you'd hear politicians blabbering away prayers and such for the victims. If it happens on the other side of the world, well...nobody gives a (fill in the blank here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)