A Tale of Two Stories

[Zed's_Dead 16]

there was an article i read once that describes the world into 3 categories. Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs.

 

 

 

For the full article go here

 

 

After reading the article I am prepared to put myself in the sheepdog position for my family and friends, while they can live their lives as sheep. However, NJ won't give me my fangs outside the home.

 

Great article. I guess those of us who want to be sheepdogs have been neutered by the State!

[Vlad G 345]

I've never loved the sheepdog/sheep/wolf triangle. I understand where it comes from, and I agree with generic sentiement but I think it oversimplifies. Grossman's write up pretty much implies that only military and police can be sheepdogs. There is a decent rebuttal to that point of view which concludes with something that resonates a lot more with me then the original premise:

 

I'm not a "wolf," who feeds on his fellow man. I'm not a "sheepdog," who protects the flock and keeps it herded together for the benefit of the shepherd between fleecings. And I'm sure as hell not a "sheep," one of Grossman's "healthy, productive citizens" with "no capacity for violence." I reject the metaphor absolutely and in detail, unless I get to add a character to his little cartoon show myself.

 

I'm a mutt. (I've used this analogy before, and it always drives dog lovers nuts: They prefer "mixed breed.") I couldn't care less about herding sheep, or about oppressing them. I have no interest in sheep at all. I know exactly on which end my teeth are kept, and I keep them sharp. I reject all demands that I have them pulled for the benefit of the flock. The flock, as I may have mentioned, does not interest me. I reject aggression, and to the extent my circumstances allow I reject violence, but if violence is forced upon me I will not delegate its use. In that case I'll do it myself. And in that case my aggressor will find me perfectly capable of dishing it out. I'd rather avoid a fight than engage in one, but it would be a terrible mistake to class me among those you consider to have "no capacity for violence."

 

Mutts are not sheepdogs, and they are not showdogs. I'll never be pretty, and I'll never be rich, and you'll sure as hell never catch me in a blue uniform or any other kind of uniform. All I want, from sheepdogs or wolves, is to be left alone to pursue my life. As long as I get that one little thing, I'm as harmless as a sheep. When I stop getting it, from sheepdogs or wolves, the differences will become apparent. Neither sheepdogs nor wolves should try to speed that day, for neither are my allies. Aggressors all look alike to me; they look like food. I'm a mutt.

 

On the original topic, I give you this: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/drivers-in-west-palm-delray-shot-in-bump-1484615.html

[hmmjak 2]

Yes I agree that the article makes it seem like only the military or law enforcement officers can be sheepdogs and I think it is because it was written that way with that audience in mind. However, I don't think it does not only apply to them. We all can be sheepdogs for our own small flock of sheep, our family and our friends.

 

The rebuttal does make valid points but leaves no room for in between. He says he has no interest in the flock of sheep. Makes it seem like he does not have loved ones to protect. Maybe they're all mutts like him? Perhaps, but would you throw your children under that category too?

 

Things rarely fit so nicely when you try and categorize everything. There are always exceptions. Just a part of life.

 

 

Oh and in reality, sheep do LOOK kind and gentle, but they do attack. Much like many animals, deer and etc.

[The Dark Knight 11]

Story #3:

A man is traveling through the city at night with his wife and teenage daughter on their way back from a visit with grandma and grandpa. He is an off-duty police officer, his wife works at a day care center and their daughter is a junior in high school.

 

They stop at a light behind an old beat-up Junker; the man doesn’t notice that the car behind him is just a little too close. Suddenly two young men approach his car with guns drawn. He draws his off-duty sidearm from his holster and shoots one of the attackers in the shoulder. The other attacker fires four shots, killing the off duty cop and severely injuring his wife. The assailants flee and are caught a short time later. The officer's wife is expected to never walk again and the injured assailant makes a full recovery. The local district attorney, police chief, and a senator hold a press conference and call for new restrictions on firearms.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Story #3:

A man is traveling through the city at night with his wife and teenage daughter on their way back from a visit with grandma and grandpa. He is an off-duty police officer, his wife works at a day care center and their daughter is a junior in high school.

 

They stop at a light behind an old beat-up Junker; the man doesn’t notice that the car behind him is just a little too close. Suddenly two young men approach his car with guns drawn. He draws his off-duty sidearm from his holster and shoots one of the attackers in the shoulder. The other attacker fires four shots, killing the off duty cop and severely injuring his wife. The assailants flee and are caught a short time later. The officer's wife is expected to never walk again and the injured assailant makes a full recovery. The local district attorney, police chief, and a senator hold a press conference and call for new restrictions on firearms.

 

This is a decidedly realistic 3rd scenario. I don't understand why folks are down-voting this one.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Even as a staunch pro-Gun advocate, I dislike how any variant of the story plays out. Being in a vehicle, armed or unarmed, when your attackers are outside is already a losing proposition. Situation-Awareness is key to surviving in life, and in this scenario, the "victim" made a fatal error by not giving himself space to escape. Even 3-4 feet of space between vehicles is enough to maneuver out.

 

If that failed, use your vehicle as a weapon and distraction.

[Dan 177]

Story #3:

A man is traveling through the city at night with his wife and teenage daughter on their way back from a visit with grandma and grandpa. He is an off-duty police officer, his wife works at a day care center and their daughter is a junior in high school.

 

They stop at a light behind an old beat-up Junker; the man doesn’t notice that the car behind him is just a little too close. Suddenly two young men approach his car with guns drawn. He draws his off-duty sidearm from his holster and shoots one of the attackers in the shoulder. The other attacker fires four shots, killing the off duty cop and severely injuring his wife. The assailants flee and are caught a short time later. The officer's wife is expected to never walk again and the injured assailant makes a full recovery. The local district attorney, police chief, and a senator hold a press conference and call for new restrictions on firearms.

 

Devil's advocate, fun game.

 

Any story can be twisted to suit either side in an argument. Look at the recent Tuscon mass murder incident. Both pro and anti's are using Joe Zamudio's story. Pro's are saying he ran towards danger to help, and was prepared to stop the maniac with an armed response, much faster than police could respond. That it was pure luck that others on the scene were able to tackle the attacker before anyone else got injured. The anti's are saying that Zamudio being untrained, could have shot the wrong guy, in this case one of those that tackled the killer and picked up the gun. They say it was pure luck that Zamudio didn't shoot the wrong guy.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

Even as a staunch pro-Gun advocate, I dislike how any variant of the story plays out. Being in a vehicle, armed or unarmed, when your attackers are outside is already a losing proposition. Situation-Awareness is key to surviving in life, and in this scenario, the "victim" made a fatal error by not giving himself space to escape. Even 3-4 feet of space between vehicles is enough to maneuver out.

 

If that failed, use your vehicle as a weapon and distraction.

 

Of course this is true. It is ALWAYS best to be aware of your surroundings and to be prepared for a response. Unfortunately, being human, most of us have been distracted enough at one time or another to make a mistake. Also, I am not saying that carrying a gun is the answer to all our problems. What I *AM* saying is, it is against *ALL* reason for the state to disarm its decent, responsible, law-abiding residents. Obviously, there are at least SOME situations where a properly trained, armed individual WOULD be able to defend him/herself and his/her loved ones more effectively WITH a gun. Just as you can't legislate sanity or perfection, you can't pre-determine every outcome. All you can do is (as suggested in the quote) prepare. At least PART of that preparation can be to become proficient with a defensive handgun. However, when the state takes that option away from you, they severely limit your chances of survival in many scenarios. Keep in mind, this was just a simple, off the cuff scenario I came up with on the fly, at the time (I believe that last sentence was brought to you by the department of redundancy department). :-)

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Devil's advocate, fun game.

 

Any story can be twisted to suit either side in an argument. Look at the recent Tuscon mass murder incident. Both pro and anti's are using Joe Zamudio's story. Pro's are saying he ran towards danger to help, and was prepared to stop the maniac with an armed response, much faster than police could respond. That it was pure luck that others on the scene were able to tackle the attacker before anyone else got injured. The anti's are saying that Zamudio being untrained, could have shot the wrong guy, in this case one of those that tackled the killer and picked up the gun. They say it was pure luck that Zamudio didn't shoot the wrong guy.

 

Except that he didn't, hence why that argument is bogus. As an untrained civilian, he assessed the situation and did the right thing.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Of course this is true. It is ALWAYS best to be aware of your surroundings and to be prepared for a response. Unfortunately, being human, most of us have been distracted enough at one time or another to make a mistake. Also, I am not saying that carrying a gun is the answer to all our problems. What I *AM* saying is, it is against *ALL* reason for the state to disarm its decent, responsible, law-abiding residents. Obviously, there are at least SOME situations where a properly trained, armed individual WOULD be able to defend him/herself and his/her loved ones more effectively WITH a gun. Just as you can't legislate sanity or perfection, you can't pre-determine every outcome. All you can do is (as suggested in the quote) prepare. At least PART of that preparation can be to become proficient with a defensive handgun. However, when the state takes that option away from you, they severely limit your chances of survival in many scenarios. Keep in mind, this was just a simple, off the cuff scenario I came up with on the fly, at the time (I believe that last sentence was brought to you by the department of redundancy department). :-)

 

You're 100% correct. But let's be realists here: not every CCW situation ends up nice and rosy. That being said: I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[Zell959 40]

I've never loved the sheepdog/sheep/wolf triangle.

 

I also have never liked that analogy.

 

The somewhat unavoidable outcome is a small but vocal group of people who view the analogy as a vehicle for claiming their superiority to the general population.

 

The use of "sheep" is inherrently pejorative. Relative to analogy, the sheep-dogs are undeniably superior to the sheep, even if the original author did not intend to insult anyone. The sheep are week, cowardly and can't think for themselves. The sheep dogs are brave and powerful leaders who the sheep would be lost without. The sheep are necessary, but only in a collective sense. A single sheep dog is far more important than a single sheep, because there are only a few of them in each flock.

 

It's also sort of counter productive to the goal of increasing the number of people who become interested in learning to defend themselves. The original context does not always come along for the ride when the analogy is bounced around by word of mouth or the internet. Someone who isn't familiar with guns or the original intent is more likely to just get the short version.

-You're a sheep.

-The world had wolves

-Thankfully, sheep dogs will try their best to protect you.

 

By itself like that, it's pretty condescending. You're helpless and always will be, as a sheep can't turn into a dog.

[hmmjak 2]

Of course this is true. It is ALWAYS best to be aware of your surroundings and to be prepared for a response. Unfortunately, being human, most of us have been distracted enough at one time or another to make a mistake. Also, I am not saying that carrying a gun is the answer to all our problems. What I *AM* saying is, it is against *ALL* reason for the state to disarm its decent, responsible, law-abiding residents. Obviously, there are at least SOME situations where a properly trained, armed individual WOULD be able to defend him/herself and his/her loved ones more effectively WITH a gun. Just as you can't legislate sanity or perfection, you can't pre-determine every outcome. All you can do is (as suggested in the quote) prepare. At least PART of that preparation can be to become proficient with a defensive handgun. However, when the state takes that option away from you, they severely limit your chances of survival in many scenarios. Keep in mind, this was just a simple, off the cuff scenario I came up with on the fly, at the time (I believe that last sentence was brought to you by the department of redundancy department). :-)

 

agreed.

 

a firearm is not a solution to every situation but it does put things more in your favor. it gives people more options.

 

 

I also have never liked that analogy.

 

The somewhat unavoidable outcome is a small but vocal group of people who view the analogy as a vehicle for claiming their superiority to the general population.

 

The use of "sheep" is inherrently pejorative. Relative to analogy, the sheep-dogs are undeniably superior to the sheep, even if the original author did not intend to insult anyone. The sheep are week, cowardly and can't think for themselves. The sheep dogs are brave and powerful leaders who the sheep would be lost without. The sheep are necessary, but only in a collective sense. A single sheep dog is far more important than a single sheep, because there are only a few of them in each flock.

 

It's also sort of counter productive to the goal of increasing the number of people who become interested in learning to defend themselves. The original context does not always come along for the ride when the analogy is bounced around by word of mouth or the internet. Someone who isn't familiar with guns or the original intent is more likely to just get the short version.

-You're a sheep.

-The world had wolves

-Thankfully, sheep dogs will try their best to protect you.

 

By itself like that, it's pretty condescending. You're helpless and always will be, as a sheep can't turn into a dog.

 

eh. i think that's just reading it too literal and not exploring how it can apply in a broader sense. whatevs.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Part of the problem is simply that some minds cant come to terms with the fact that there are people out there that need killing.....

No one deserves to die, some people just don't deserve to live.

[Zell959 40]

eh. i think that's just reading it too literal and not exploring how it can apply in a broader sense. whatevs.

 

Again, I feel that the analogy often travels in a bare bones form that lacks the original source's broader context. Telling someone they're a sheep, but not literally, is still pretty unlikely to peak their interest in exploring the broader context.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

You're 100% correct. But let's be realists here: not every CCW situation ends up nice and rosy. That being said: I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

INDEED!

[The Dark Knight 11]

The presence of a concealed weapon is by no means a guarantee of safety or the assurance of a happy ending to any story. Plenty of people pull a gun in self defense only to either fail to stop the threat, or be shot anyway. The gun board fantasy is always an obvious crook 30ft away with a knife. But in real life, you're not carrying a gun because you're worried about Jason Voorhees. Well, at least I'd hope not. It takes a lot of training to effectively draw, let alone use, a concealed weapon in an effective manner. Just because some weekend warrior can punch neat holes in a target on the weekend means jack squat in a self defense scenario. If you have the ability to, try doing jumping jacks until you're winded, then try drawing your gun from a concealed holster and doing some double taps. It's a nice reality check to show how different something as little as physical exertion, let alone adrenaline and pure terror in a real life situation, effect your shooting skills. You likely are not the hot shot sharpshootin' cowboy you think you are.

 

Now, this isn't to say that CCW should not be permitted, quite the opposite, in fact. It should be accessible to all aside from the mentally ill, or obvious threats to society. What I'm trying to say is that you, and pro-gun advocates in general, cripple your own argument when you try to frame CCW as something that always results in a happy ending. It doesn't. CCW is simply the ability to have a chance to defend yourself, rather than no chance at all.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

The presence of a concealed weapon is by no means a guarantee of safety or the assurance of a happy ending to any story. Plenty of people pull a gun in self defense only to either fail to stop the threat, or be shot anyway. The gun board fantasy is always an obvious crook 30ft away with a knife. But in real life, you're not carrying a gun because you're worried about Jason Voorhees. Well, at least I'd hope not. It takes a lot of training to effectively draw, let alone use, a concealed weapon in an effective manner. Just because some weekend warrior can punch neat holes in a target on the weekend means jack squat in a self defense scenario. If you have the ability to, try doing jumping jacks until you're winded, then try drawing your gun from a concealed holster and doing some double taps. It's a nice reality check to show how different something as little as physical exertion, let alone adrenaline and pure terror in a real life situation, effect your shooting skills. You likely are not the hot shot sharpshootin' cowboy you think you are.

 

Now, this isn't to say that CCW should not be permitted, quite the opposite, in fact. It should be accessible to all aside from the mentally ill, or obvious threats to society. What I'm trying to say is that you, and pro-gun advocates in general, cripple your own argument when you try to frame CCW as something that always results in a happy ending. It doesn't. CCW is simply the ability to have a chance to defend yourself, rather than no chance at all.

 

Indeed, and when you read the post carefully, you will see that the point is not that possession of a gun is a panacea but rather that the state of New Jersey disarms its residents once they leave their residence. That was and still is the point of the post. It cannot be honestly argued that the state of New Jersey does NOT disarm its residents once they leave the "relative" safety of their home.