A buddy once asked me to help him move.
We were returning the rental truck (which places this incident as being after the move but before the pizza) when two young women took us to task. It seems that where we had parked the truck kept them from driving away with their own rental, and they wanted us to know just how much they needed that extra three minutes it took for us to move out of their way.
My buddy wasn't one to back down from an argument, and it got pretty heated. Through it all I just stood there and waited for the inevitable conclusion, where both sides got fed up and stormed off in a huff.
But my friend wasn't any too happy about how he had gotten double teamed by two irate women while I just stood there and waited for it to end. He wanted to know why I didn't jump in there to verbally defend his honor.
"Because I'm armed!" I said, shocked down to my socks. "With a responsibility like that hanging over me, do you think I'm going to get involved in some pissing match in the Hertz Rent-A-Truck parking lot?"
My buddy, needless to say, didn't see the logic of my position.
I'm walking down Memory Lane today because of this excellent post by Porta's Cat. The subject of his essay is the responsibility of going armed, and how it effects your own behavior and attitude.
I thought that PC sums it up for many self defense advocates when he writes about his own reasons for arming himself.
I do so because in my mind, and in my philosophy, and in my experiences, there is no "safe place".
And then he points out that carrying a gun is not to allow someone to indulge in their aggressive tendencies.
A handgun is for getting me out of situations that I would not have gotten out of if I did not have one. It is not for getting me into situations that I would not have gotten into if I did not have one.
Read the whole thing. Well worth your time.
Comments (2)
Nice post, James! Heinlein claims an armed society is a polite society, and it's good to see some folks actually live by that.
Have you noticed that the same thing happens between sane nuclear-armed countries? The US and Soviet Union hated each other, but just couldn't afford to fight a full-fledged hot war. Similarly, now that they're both nuclear-armed, India and Pakistan have backed away from the brink of war, unlike their last three confrontations.
When told about the bomb, Niels Bohr reportedly asked Oppenheimer "Is it big enough?", as in is it big enough to make your average (at the time, stupid) war just not worth it anymore.
On the other hand, there do exist intemperate countries like Iran, and trigger-happy Texans in the world. These folks aren't being polite, but at least they're slowly being filtered out of the gene pool...
Posted by the_hammer | April 2, 2007 1:49 PM
Posted on April 2, 2007 13:49
I once heard a nice sermon about what turned out to be a mistranslation of First Timothy 3:2.
The theme was how the verse (as incorrectly translated) said that a congregational leader must be "above reproach". In other words, not merely innocent, but so avoiding of compromising situations that no one could even bring a false accusation.
Even though that is not a correct translation, it is good advice for a minister. And it seems to be quite related to what you and Porta's Cat are writing about.
Posted by David V.S. | April 10, 2007 11:39 PM
Posted on April 10, 2007 23:39