In personal defense, it is common to hear that the formula “= Intention + Capacity Threat”.
One could certainly apply to a world run by chaos, and consider it as a starting point in order to adapt our response to various dangers generated by the situation.
As a survivalist, it is vital to have a defense plan. The world can be a particularly dangerous place where, according to circumstances, kind and rational people could become killers …
In a scenario of collapse, it is obvious that we would have to deal with incredibly desperate people, even if they were not the primary intent to kill or to hurt, probably will do anything to ensure the livelihoods of their loved ones. It is in these moments that we may have to depend on a weapon to save our lives.
Since the first publication of Surviving Chaos, I advise readers to be ready to face the “dysfunctions” societal, and their consequences, which the press gives us daily examples worldwide. Whether natural events such as earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis … In such technological dangers of nuclear accidents threatening the life of a whole population, viruses that spread around the globe, from chemicals that poison the land and water … Or, for what concerns us most immediately we of the hexagon and it almost way, the next inter-communal clashes that are sure to ignite blood and the kingdom of France.
Just like cars that go up in smoke every night, these “faults” are now part of the things “normal” life. Not crazy conspiracy theories but real threats every day, and survivalist sites are given a mission to make people understand that there is a probability that they also become victims, according to the where they live.
Because by taking simple steps now, we can begin to prepare for such malfunctions in our own lives. With planning, you can undoubtedly become more autonomous face of disaster.
However, there are dangers that can not be avoided by a simple food storage plan. Dirty stories that we fall on the corner of the figure and do not wash with mineral water containers stored under the bed Sometimes it is simply not possible to foresee everything, as can also be faced with something we forgot to look.
Our preparation must take into account different types and levels of threats, and provide an opportunity to respond to each. Obviously, how we are affected by the disaster is what will make the difference. For example, it is not so much a problem if an earthquake struck your town, but your home and family are intact. If all the stores down the street are open and operating normally, your reserves will not be as necessary as in the opposite case. Everything depends on the disaster, its magnitude, and consequences.
But now let’s take another example, something like a pandemic caused by a mutant virus escaped from the laboratory. The scenario would be: the epidemic has devastated the country and killed half the population. Everyone is recorded at his home for two months and you wait, cloistered in your home. Your stocks have declined dramatically, but your family is still in good health thanks to the magnesium chloride that you had the wisdom to store, and you might take two months. The current is intermittent due to declining enrollment in public services; Many died, and several days may pass without any electricity. The water still runs in the pipes, but there are rumors to the effect that it would no longer drinkable.
That is our starting point, and it is needless to say that in such a case, there would be many situations where our security is seriously compromised.
When preparing for the unexpected, which is the reason for everything and becomes a survivalist need day after day, we must consider its own capacity to face the violence but also to inflict back into To protect his family or those you love. That is to be determined, and before that the opportunity presents itself, our ability against our “capability”. That is, for the latter and following the definition of use, “the real possibility that a person has to choose combinations of various workings, that is an evaluation of freedom which it has effectively”.
Take for example a person who rushes out with a butcher knife in his hands. In such a case, it was clearly the intention, the means and opportunity to kill you. You have no chance to escape, but you are armed. Given the situation, there are only two alternatives: shoot or not to shoot. The question is: Are you going to shoot? Do you agree to shoot and kill a person?
If we judge by the question, the answer seems obvious. It may not be as simple and decided for some, but personally I like to think I’d be able to pull the trigger if I had to defend my life or that of my family. The person foncerait on me (for) with a butcher knife (capacity) – apart from any other consideration ethical or possibility of leakage – justify the fact that shoots him to the extent that it would represent a threat checked .
Now change an item. Imagine that a child of 12 is at the origin of this threat. Will you still draw? Killing? Are you still in agreement with the principle?
And if the threat was only six years old? And if it was a woman … And what’s more, a pregnant woman? A mentally handicapped person or someone who has not conscious of his actions? Your own wife, your child …
What if toddler watching? Or surveillance cameras record the scene? Yet the threat is the same: a 6 year old boy armed with a large knife could kill, and there are no more degrees in death as there may be in burns. Do you still think the same way, despite the different scenarios? Personally I would have some hesitation. Even knowing perfectly how a knife can kill, and knowing the number of people dying of overconfidence, I see myself wrong a priori shoot a child.
Or and affixed, while considering differently the different scenarios, I can choose to respond in the same way, leaving until later the task of feel bad because of my choices.
Think about this. Think about it thoroughly. Feel what happens in your gut before you try to paste a logical reasoning. And when you try to think about it, try to see when you start to rationalize – when your logic takes the relay not to make you choose the best solution, but to justify the decision that your guts make you take.
Imagine such a change in the turn of events or in their fundamental aspects is an interesting exercise. Have you thought about what you do? Would you be willing to shoot someone? If you answered “Yes” without hesitation, then it is likely that you have a pretty good idea about who might be the “bad guy” in a chaos scenario. Like many survivalists probably. For them, the threat would be a man of sinister appearance that will be introduced in the house, and that it should deal with the woman and children standing down. They fully imagine the knife in the hand of the guy in front, and a weapon in theirs. And of course they would have little hesitation when the question arises whether to shoot or not. And for many, it stops there.
Change only the age of the threat, or nature, and things get complicated. If I myself was a father, it is a possibility that would give me pause. And if the threat was only 6 years? No doubt I could disarm it. No doubt I could disarm any threat with a knife from a child from 6 to 12 years, and it is possible that I do not consider someone below (or above) of some age with a large knife in the hands as a potential threat. Even if there was a possibility that I might be cut, that is to say that I make a mistake at some point (technical or appreciation), it is likely that I will not’d shoot a human being which I believe to be able to take over.
But such a notion becomes increasingly fluctuating, and doubt is always allowed. Because we now live in an age where kids twelve raping little girls of six. And that’s not a metaphor. If you follow the alternative sites, you surely have seen pass such “news items” which are hidden in the vast majority by state media.
So we’re back to the first question: What if the threat is not the one we had imagined?
And if that person happened to be the neighbor in retirement that has always been the best neighbor that we can dream? Or the son of the neighbor? In cases maybe not 6 or 12, but 18? Do you draw? And if there was someone with whom you have prepared – who knows your secret reserves because you do not fully complied with the OPSEC measures – which come knocking on your door because his wife is sick and hungry ? If he was holding a gun in one hand, and the hand of his daughter in the other … Tireriez you be the first, or would you let shoot first?
I know all the arguments that advocate for charity, assistance to his blood brothers in need as well as all rational approaches on how to deal with family members before chaos arrives . But I do not have all the answers to the scenarios discussed above. For cons, I think it is still valid to think about it in advance. It could be that none of us know exactly what he would do in such situations. I honestly do not know myself, and I can not even say how I would react. Maybe I should stay rooted to the spot within a few seconds?
We expose on this blog different aspects that concern all the field of personal defense, and these are the basics that I think in terms of capacity, the drive and the will to defend their place of living. But often this defense is based on a way of representing the danger. Reality likes to play our various scenarios; The fact thinking of those we have mentioned could give you some ideas in terms of your preparations. This could also change the way you design security, and what you intend to do in the event that they do occur.
I know that for certain, “A threat is a threat, and the question of pulling or not does not arise.” I can come to understand such reasoning, even if somewhere, such people remind me of the infamous bastards shearers women liberation. However, I do not blame them. A 12 year old kid could probably you slice the throat after seeing his parents and brothers to die of hunger or disease, and walk the streets on a war footing vowing to never let his little sister about an end as horrible. It might not kill you at the time, but inflict serious injury, potentially fatal if medical help is nonexistent. Which then take care of your family if you are dead or dying?
For those who have already taken the life, such a topic might seem ridiculous. There is nothing funny or normal, in the act of taking the life of another person. Sometimes it’s a necessary evil in order to preserve our own, and it is then fully justified. But this is not something that one is supposed to do in a perfect world.
On a material level, anyone who threatens to steal critical supplies to yourself and yours is a risk to your life. Maybe you have reserves for several months and that nobody wants for 2 or 3 days, but who knows how long will last the chaos? Maybe this person will not cause you so much trouble at the moment, but it puts you at risk in all cases. And now she knows where you are, what are your reserves, and that you form an easy target. Maybe she was just a scout will come back with the rest of his group?
Let go of someone exposes you to additional risks. As in the recent American movie where a group of special forces infiltrated enemy lines falls on a simple shepherd and his son. Will they kill the kid, to prevent their presence secret be revealed if he ever speaks, or will they let him go because he is a kid? I let you watch the film to know the end … It’s a horrible scenario that no one wants to be confronted, but this is something that would need you agree before it arises. The fact planning a situation, even in an expeditious manner, you will react faster and justify your actions when the time comes to do battle with their psychological consequences.
Everyone would feel having to shoot someone he knows, even a stranger, but no doubt that most would if that person represented a real threat to their families – that person is a man, woman or child, young or old. Everyone has the right to live his life, but also the duty to defend …
In normal times, it could just normal “rules of engagement” set by law (self-defense). Namely: a sufficient and justified fear of suffering serious bodily injury or death. In such a context, it would be the one applicable standard a reasonable person to judge whether to release his weapon or not. Whether for shooting until the threat is irreversibly stopped, or use a “less lethal” force in order to prevent it from going further. But such a rule depends also and especially on the situation. The chaos of the problem is the collapse of law, failover of normality, and the questioning of all traditional societal bases. In such a situation, it is clear that the boundaries are blurred and the game is changing; Our only job then of protecting our family …