Theodore Dalrymple observed that he could tell whether criminals would be back in jail.
Before they were released, he would speak of seeing them again.
Some would say, "No." And he wouldn't.
Most would say, "It depends," and he would, because in their minds, what it depended on was the police, the courts, etc. -- anything, in fact, except their own actions.
(*Life At The Bottom* Excellent book for understanding them.)
When I reflect on how critters think, I’ve often concluded they lack impulse control. They want your Air Jordan sneakers, they’ll take them (even if they’re the wrong size). They want your wallet, they’ll take take it by whatever force needed. If forcefully dissuaded (shot or severely thumped), they change from mugging to breaking cars, or homes when no one his home. I often tell the law-abiding that critters don’t think like normal folks.
As you say, it almost always takes painful lessons for critters to change or even more rarely straighten up and fly right.
I completely concur with you. I can give you a perfect example:
There was a family of renters in my neighborhood who had an awkward relationship with the law. They were known to have done breaking and entering on several homes in the neighborhood. But, they never touched mine. Why? They knew my wife and I were routinely active in the shooting sports, and had rather odd schedules. The risk was nowhere near the reward. If other people had shown willingness to defend themselves and their homes, I doubt they would have touched anybody's home.
They moved out after the "man" of the house and eldest son were tased in the street by the local PD. They had proven to be rather un-cooperative when the local PD had shown up with arrest warrants.
I have drawn criticism because I fully oppose governmental application of the death penalty; in my career I have witnessed too much incompetence, sloppiness, prevarication, and outright corruption to trust any government, anywhere, with that amount of power, not to mention the massive, prolonged systemic delay between event and punishment.
I have, however, always, and to the fullest amount possible, encouraged application of the death penalty <i>by the intended victim during the commission of a crime</i> and have done whatever I can to encourage more widespread and effective application of it.
In the "Risk vs Reward" equation the closer Risk rises to 100% whatever remains of the value of Reward becomes irrelevant.
My observation is that most of the critters advocating against self-defense are in a situation where they are protected and have no need for self-defense. "Let them eat cake".
"Norman Stanley Fletcher, you have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by this court, and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are an habitual criminal, who accepts arrest as an occupational hazard, and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner. We therefore feel constrained to commit you to the maximum term allowed for these offences; you will go to prison for five years." [Opening sequence to Porridge, British sitcom of the 70s]
There is an implication that seems universally applicable, and fits nicely with the article. Habitual criminals accept everything that might go wrong as occupational hazards, hazards they are willing to risk. It is the pre-habitual criminals who might be persuaded that the hazards are too great to risk (any more).
Theodore Dalrymple observed that he could tell whether criminals would be back in jail.
Before they were released, he would speak of seeing them again.
Some would say, "No." And he wouldn't.
Most would say, "It depends," and he would, because in their minds, what it depended on was the police, the courts, etc. -- anything, in fact, except their own actions.
(*Life At The Bottom* Excellent book for understanding them.)
When I reflect on how critters think, I’ve often concluded they lack impulse control. They want your Air Jordan sneakers, they’ll take them (even if they’re the wrong size). They want your wallet, they’ll take take it by whatever force needed. If forcefully dissuaded (shot or severely thumped), they change from mugging to breaking cars, or homes when no one his home. I often tell the law-abiding that critters don’t think like normal folks.
As you say, it almost always takes painful lessons for critters to change or even more rarely straighten up and fly right.
I completely concur with you. I can give you a perfect example:
There was a family of renters in my neighborhood who had an awkward relationship with the law. They were known to have done breaking and entering on several homes in the neighborhood. But, they never touched mine. Why? They knew my wife and I were routinely active in the shooting sports, and had rather odd schedules. The risk was nowhere near the reward. If other people had shown willingness to defend themselves and their homes, I doubt they would have touched anybody's home.
They moved out after the "man" of the house and eldest son were tased in the street by the local PD. They had proven to be rather un-cooperative when the local PD had shown up with arrest warrants.
I have drawn criticism because I fully oppose governmental application of the death penalty; in my career I have witnessed too much incompetence, sloppiness, prevarication, and outright corruption to trust any government, anywhere, with that amount of power, not to mention the massive, prolonged systemic delay between event and punishment.
I have, however, always, and to the fullest amount possible, encouraged application of the death penalty <i>by the intended victim during the commission of a crime</i> and have done whatever I can to encourage more widespread and effective application of it.
In the "Risk vs Reward" equation the closer Risk rises to 100% whatever remains of the value of Reward becomes irrelevant.
Well said, Sir. I concur.
Weakness invites abuse/attack.
Defenseless people who cooperate with criminals are weak.
An armed society is a safe society.
My observation is that most of the critters advocating against self-defense are in a situation where they are protected and have no need for self-defense. "Let them eat cake".
"Norman Stanley Fletcher, you have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by this court, and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are an habitual criminal, who accepts arrest as an occupational hazard, and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner. We therefore feel constrained to commit you to the maximum term allowed for these offences; you will go to prison for five years." [Opening sequence to Porridge, British sitcom of the 70s]
There is an implication that seems universally applicable, and fits nicely with the article. Habitual criminals accept everything that might go wrong as occupational hazards, hazards they are willing to risk. It is the pre-habitual criminals who might be persuaded that the hazards are too great to risk (any more).
Quite!
Thank you - very well said.