Lacking the killer instinct?

Mike Sr. said:

If she believe's in the 10 Commandments then ask to her to contemplate this:


Thou shalt not kill means thou shall not be killed!

Click to expand...

The real text of the 10 Commandments says,“Ratsach”, "THOU SHALL NOT KILL WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE." i.e. Thou shall not MURDER.

Heck of a lot of difference between what is batted about and what is written in Hebrew.

The King of England wanted his subjects to say 'subjects' and that is what this BS 'thou shall not kill' was for.

Deaf

Mindset is primary. The best primer I know of to develop a proper mindset is Cooper's Principles of Personal Defense - this has been a standard reference for decades now. See http://www.paladin-press.com/product/Principles_of_Personal_Defense/Other_Combat_Shooting to order, it's the best $20 you'll ever spend on personal defense IMHO.

Then, refer your DW to Kathy Jackson's website called Cornered Cat - http://www.corneredcat.com/ . It's an armed self defense site written by a woman for other women, and it has been helpful to a lot of people I have referred to it. There's a good section there on Mindset - see the Contents tab to find it, or see http://www.corneredcat.com/Like_a_Cornered_Cat/ to get started.

It's good she was able to control that situation without using violence - but she really should have been FULLY READY, WILLING AND ABLE to use whatever level of violence was necessary to protect herself, had her initial efforts to 'talk down' the situation failed. What would she have been able to do in this case had she faced a genuine, determined attacker? That IMHO is the important question that needs to be addressed. And that question is one primarily of Mindset, as I see it. All else follows Mindset.

She is a priceless individual - many folks fail to view themselves properly in this regard IMHO. It may be a self-esteem issue, I don't know, I'm no psychologist and don't even play one on teevee. But whatever the reason is, she needs to know that she is one of your family's most valuable assets, and she needs to be just as willing and able to protect herself - for her own sake as well as yours - as you are to protect her.

As a follow-up, take a look at the NRA's Personal Protection In The Home class. For a description and class locator, see http://www.nrainstructors.org/searchcourse.aspx . Look into other basic classes from the NRA as well. It seems to me that a certain number of people, women in particular, have a serious level of doubt about their own ability to defend themselves effectively with a firearm. For some of them at least, learning how to shoot defensively can help a number of those people overcome this self-doubt. It seems to me that for some people, "the skill engenders the will" - once they learn they CAN shoot effectively and safely, all of a sudden they realize that they CAN defend themselves. Again, this may not be the issue in your DW's case, I don't know, but it might be something that would help. Having a good home defense plan in place, developed for your own family and house, discussed and practiced in your home, might be a help in her knowing what to do should a similar situation present itself again. Just as your family needs a fire evacuation plan and plans to cope effectively with any other emergency, you need a home defense plan and also need to drill/practice it so it can be carried out under pressure.

Ask her if she is willing to put you, the kids and her parents through burying her because of her selfish desire not to protect herself. She is married now and has obligations to others.

Some people simply cannot bring themselves to cause harm to others. Truthfully, giving someone who is simply incapable of killing a lethal weapon is a very bad idea. That's where you get people who talk about shooting to wound, shooting to frighten, or just having the weapon to scare the bad guys away. My dad is the same way. As supportive as he has been of me and my gun hobby, he simply would not go ahead and kill, even if he had to. This is the same man who said that everyone who ever takes a life ends up severely psychologically damaged and in need of a strong therapy regimen plus antidepressants.

This is the same man who said that everyone who ever takes a life ends up severely psychologically damaged and in need of a strong therapy regimen plus antidepressants.

Click to expand...

Well, he's right to be concerned. Many people forced into taking a life are troubled by it for many years or forever. Neither the legalities nor the repurcussions are to be taken lightly. Folks who struggle with their experiences haunting them need help and there's no shame in that. We're starting to understand that, and our police officers and fighting men are better off for it.

If I ever have to shoot someone, it is to STOP them from doing what ever evil they intend to do. If they die, too bad. If they live, maybe they will look at another line of work......chris3

Not every negative encounter demands either the introduction or use of deadly force---sometimes just a little common sense and planning work much better.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more.

Fight or Flight is an interesting biological response.

Once the body has decided on "fight" there isn't really much more to do at that moment.

Females in psychology generally have more of a flight than fight response. This is normal and prudent....lots of "in danger" kids have lived to adulthood due to this very well ingrained response.

Thou shalt not kill means thou shall not be killed!

Click to expand...

Actually, it started with thou shalt not MURDER. Translation is the bugger of history. ( not the first to point this out....glad, actually)

In your specific case it would appear that your wife was not in fear of her life, albeit possibly in danger.

Taking that mans life, in that specific case, would be murder.

With that, I think given how things turned out, I'd trust her judgement in the future.

On a note I think everyone skipped, so I get an actual original contribution :

What actually makes you think , if she were actually presented with a situation she judged necessary of using lethal force, that she would not do so ?

Has she told you so, or just this incident ?

The shotgun courses tell me she might be more ready to do so than you believe. Her decision to do so further solidifies my internet appraisal of your wifes desire to live, as well as her impeccable judgement in matters relating to her future.

After all, she judged you a worthy husband right ? Hard to argue with that logic base

"“If it's natural to kill, how come men have to go into training to learn how?” " -baez

Pick out a few episodes of "I Survived" that are most closely pertinent to that situation and watch them with her.

Here On hulu

So she talked the guy who was drunk and she knew away, and things worked out.

That is what you want even if you have guns.
You may want a gun as a back up, and she should avoid putting herself in a position from which she couldn't use it if he was violent, but you don't default to its use.

Relying on a gun to solve conflict means you are going to lose. Even if you do everything according to the law, going to court for deploying lethal force will cost a lot of time and money, and there is no guarantee you will prevail even if you did everything entirely legal.
You are going to have many new enemies, the family and friends of the person force was used against, etc
And life is precious, while nobody trying to harm you or family should have their life spared at the expense of life or serious injury of another, lethal force or the threat of it shouldn't be the default action when faced with confrontation.

There is the saying "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
If you rely on threats and violence to resolve even conflict that does not require violence, irregardless of whether you do or do not comply with the law, you have a good probability of facing a violent end.


That is not to say someone should allow themselves to be an easy victim. One should be prepared to defend themselves. There is many predators in the world. One should also not trust the judgment or rely on the mercy of any predator, because they may have no compassion whatsoever if you submit to them. I recall many killers with victims who thought the criminal was only going to rob or rape, who after a compliant victim was bound or vulnerable proceeded to kill them.
One should never put themselves in a situation of relying on the compassion of an attacker, even dying while fighting can be better than dying defenseless later.
But such situations are very different than discouraging a drunk or annoying person from harassing you.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Some validation for my statements in an earlier post (#27) on this thread:

http://agirlandhergun.blogspot.com/2012/01/just-in-case.html

Fight back!

See also the thread at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=636742

Corneredcat.com
member here who specializes in pistol instruction for women, cause, she's a lady
really good
worth a read, even if you aren't a woman.

I am glad no one was hurt.

Killing a person is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly. You are taking away all that they are and all that they will ever be.

Ya'll have kids?

Anybody trying to hurt her will then hurt her kids.

Maternal instincts should kick in. I think any mother can find that killer instinct.

HSO said:

I'm not sure she read the situation incorrectly. Kill isn't the default correct response to all negative encounters.

Did he assault her in any way or just push his way into your home in spite of her repeated attempt to keep him out? If he didn't attack her, she may have chosen the correct path and you're overreacting.

Would you have killed him if you thought he was just an instant drunk?

Click to expand...

I agree with HSO's comment. The appropriate response to all "incidents" is not to start blazing away. Instead of finding fault you should tell her that you are proud of her. Then discuss CALMLY and without criticism what she would have done IF...

People are killers. We do not need to cultivate that behavior, God help us, it is natural. When the chips are down, she will do what must be done. The best way to ruin things is to start finding fault with someone because they didn't do WHAT YOU would have. As a therapist friend of mine said once: "your wife didn't enroll in your studio to be taught how to live life by you. The two of you should be sharing life together."

+1 SlamFire1

Some people suffer from a mental condition known as survivors guilt. No matter what happens or who was at fault they feel guilty for surviving when someone else dies.

When I was younger I don't know if I could have pulled the trigger to save only myself. Or, if I did, I don't know if I could I have lived with myself afterwords. After many years of seeing others' actions and finally understanding that some people are just evil, I have no doubts that I can.

There's no doubt in my mind that your wife did the right thing. But she should have been better prepared both mentally and physically to defend herself and her family with deadly forced if necessary. Your wife just needs a little more exposure to the "real world".

This is the same man who said that everyone who ever takes a life ends up severely psychologically damaged and in need of a strong therapy regimen plus antidepressants.

Click to expand...

Lots of amateur psychologists out there.

The problem of being unable to take the life of another, even in self defense, boils down to a lack of self esteem and/or a lack of rational self-interest.

There is a poisonous philosophy that has been a part of western culture for a long time which holds that a person's virtue is proportional to how much he sacrifices his own interests for those of others. We are all taught this from a young age, and some take it more seriously than others. It has strong negative psychological effects on those who take it seriously. It is the philosophy of death, because no one can practice it consistently without giving up any of his own interests, even his own life, for the first random stranger who would somehow benefit from it. The only reason this evil philosophy has been perpetuated for so long is its practitioners' unwillingness to practice it fully.

When a person decides that she is unable to take the life of another, even when it's continuance is a threat to her own, she must believe that her life and her continued existence is not worth as much as that of a random stranger, even one who is causing the threat to her life.

A rational person has a rational hierarchy of values, with his own life as the primary value, because it makes possible the enjoyment of all of his other values. The lives of those who make one's life meaningful and enjoyable should be right there at the top of the hierarchy as well. A rational person should regard the life of someone who threatens one of these values as a negative value, and should act to end it.

Like Lee Lapin said, your wife should learn to see herself as a priceless individual. She is an end unto herself, rather than the means to anyone else's ends. She has the inalienable right to live, and a threat to her life is a threat to everything she holds dear in this world.

I crossed paths with one of these people a while back. Long story short, several of us at the gym were discussing a news story about a church van that was hit by a drunk driver. It killed a little girl who was a passenger as well as the drunk driver and hurt several others though not seriously. One surviving passenger was an acquaintance who used to live in my area. One of the guys at the gym said he really feel sorry for him and said:

"How could you live with yourself knowing that a child died and you survived.”

This survivor had NOTHING to do with causing the accident but this man thinks he should feel guilty for surviving. People with such low self esteem can not handle the consequences of taking the life of another human being reguardless of the reason. They filter everything through their emotions and often project it onto others. People like this are probably better off without weapons because they often can't bring themselves to use them.

Training can overcomes "instinct". Your first instinct will probably be to freeze and wonder if it's really happening. Then you'll probably panic. If you've trained the motions enough: stimulus=response, then you should be able to act accordingly. One does not rise to the occasion, but is reduced to their training. I read something similar to that somewhere. And it's true. You train to do something enough, when the time comes to squeeze the trigger, training takes over and you do it while inside you'd being peeing yourself if you weren't clenching from the nerves. The shakes and the puking come later. Right now, perform the drills.

The problem of being unable to take the life of another, even in self defense, boils down to a lack of self esteem and/or a lack of rational self-interest.

There is a poisonous philosophy that has been a part of western culture for a long time which holds that a person's virtue is proportional to how much he sacrifices his own interests for those of others. We are all taught this from a young age, and some take it more seriously than others. It has strong negative psychological effects on those who take it seriously. It is the philosophy of death, because no one can practice it consistently without giving up any of his own interests, even his own life, for the first random stranger who would somehow benefit from it. The only reason this evil philosophy has been perpetuated for so long is its practitioners' unwillingness to practice it fully.

When a person decides that she is unable to take the life of another, even when it's continuance is a threat to her own, she must believe that her life and her continued existence is not worth as much as that of a random stranger, even one who is causing the threat to her life.

A rational person has a rational hierarchy of values, with his own life as the primary value, because it makes possible the enjoyment of all of his other values. The lives of those who make one's life meaningful and enjoyable should be right there at the top of the hierarchy as well. A rational person should regard the life of someone who threatens one of these values as a negative value, and should act to end it.

Click to expand...

Your Objectivism is showing. I rather believe that each person has an innate ability to kill, sort of like a twisted version of talent. Lack of will to protect oneself is hardly a Western cultural trait; it is part of a general philosophy of pacifism. I do not think that Pacifism is inherently wrong, and if someone is a pacifist and cannot bring themselves to secure themselves and their livelihood by necessary force, then it is the duty of those who can fight to protect them. To quote Democratic Socialist, George Orwell: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Killing another human being goes against what most of us were taught. In my years as a Marine i have seen it bother the hardcase macho Marines and i have heard tell of timid little people that killed to protect themselves or kids. You cannot say you have it unless you have been there done that. You cant say they wont uless they failed. That being said you never know untill you know. Many here have no clue about what they talk about when it comes to this subject. They sure talk a good game but when the time comes many would find out different. No one puts you through better training than the Marines when it comes to this and some of them have struggled. The weekend warrior training many have taken is a help but it isures nothing but the ability to talk a good talk for many.