Now I dig that these were two, healthy young men and they had machetes, but having thought in the past about solving such a problem, there's a simple solution, whether you're male or female. It's this:
Why didn't anyone start throwing rocks? If you outnumber the enemy 40-2 or something like that, why didn't they start screaming for reinforcements from the local buildings and heaving whatever came to hand at these swine? Like Glenn Reynolds likes to say, "A pack, not a herd." Well, this was a herd and a particularly docile one at that.
Crazy. Just crazy.
5 comments:
This is a good question and for the last few months I have been considering a similar issue. It is about leadership.
There was no one willing to take leadership. Due to this vacuum, people were not made aware of the situation in the correct context. Without situational awareness people are incapable of making the correct decision, except by accident.
That's a great point. I've seen that myself in other things. A highly regulated society restricts leadership, don't you think?
They were waiting for the gov't program to pull an intervention.
It's my understanding from reading "The Jawa Report" (www.mypetjawa.mu.nu) that this area has been dealing with self-appointed sharia patrols. These patrols will harass those who aren't "behaving". The population hasn't lashed out over lesser evils. Now, they cower as a cold-blooded murder is committed in the streets in daylight.
The UK has banned the right of self-defense. The Internet is full of reports about Brits who took steps to defend themselves and ended up being the ones who got punished, while the perps walked away free. One old lady used a water pistol to hold off some teenagers who broke into her house, and when the police showed up she was arrested and charged for scaring those darling boys. Another old woman was charged for slamming her window down on the fingers of someone trying to break into her house. (I guess old folks haven't been successfully reconstructed yet. They still act like normal people.)
If the UK is a reliable guide, the end point of gun control is the banning of any form of self-defense. Those who seek to ban guns are not interested in controlling gun crimes; what they really want is a completely submissive population, which is exactly what we saw in Woolwich. I don't blame the people of Woolwich for not doing anything to confront the killers when the law so heavily favors the bad guys and is vigorously opposed to the rights of victims. You see the same government mentality in the Muslim riots in Sweden: hands off the rioters, but tickets for people whose cars got burned up and criminal charges for those who complained about it.
Here's a story about a people that hasn't been cowed by their government into submitting to Muslim rule:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/myanmar-buddhists-burn-mosque_n_3352044.html
I never thought I would hear about Buddhist Gangs on Motorcycles dealing out righteous retribution. (The provocation: a Muslim set a non-Muslim woman on fire.) I thought Buddhism was one of those entirely peaceful religions. Maybe we need our immigration reform law to allow more Burmese guys to come here.
Post a Comment