I've been doing tons of "street research" involving interviews, polls, etc. I even managed to do some work with a local National Guard unit, got to talk to a Reserve Marine component, work on the flight line with an Air Guard unit, and even speak to some security for the airports.

I discovered, more or less, that people don't want to defend themselves. They don't necessarily like cops or soldiers, but they still want those groups to defend them.

Out of 5,000 people polled, less than 10% would defend themselves if they thought they could get away.

Less than 5% would stay to defend strangers.

38% said they would stay to defend loved ones.

Of those 38%, 46% stated that they would take their loved ones and run for it if they thought they could, even if it put strangers at risk.

74% stated, at the beginning of the poll, that they figured they could take human life if they had to.

22% stated they would die before taking another human life, even to protect themselves.

53% stated that they believed that violence never solved anything.

38% stated the violence was never the answer to anything.

27% stated that there was never a situation that you cannot walk away from.

So what did my poll show me?

That Americans are goddamn retards.

I went out and played soldier for the first time in years, and found that the skills pounded into me by hard eyed bastards when I was 17 still were buried in there. I'm old, and starting to spread around my waist, but I can still conduct an ambush and follow mission plans.

I also discovered the following:

Of the 65 people there, 100% of them thought they were "Able to conduct combat operations at a basic level."

80% figured they were "good marksman"

I pretty much discovered that your average civilian between the ages of 17 and 22 have a high opinion of themselves and their skills. When the rubber met the road, some of the ones who did the most bragging were at their shittiest.

Which means that I have two choices:

I can keep doing it as I have, giving the majority of people the benifit of the doubt.

Or I can go with what my research is showing me.

90% of Americans would get owned in the first 24 hours.

The ones who are convinced that they'd be the next Audie Murphy are about as useful as tits on a boar.

I saw, and I kid you not, a guy about 250 pounds (we're talking serious flab) who had talked about how this was going to be a cakewalk, that he was "the shit" when it came to military stuff, actually stand up and shoot an M-4 from the hip when they were aggressing us.

Then he whined about "cheating" because he was "killed" via MILES gear less than a breath after he stood up.

I watched the civilians stand around looking for the sniper when one guys MILES went off. They didn't scatter until the sniper "killed" about four of them. Then, they just dove to the ground. It was like shooting turkeys.

Really dumb turkeys.

I've gone on a few ridealongs with the local police and seen that people are dumber than fucking hell.

The more research I do on Modern Man for Year of the Zombie, the more I dispair.

Oh well, hopefully my next poll, which I'll do at a local university (with thier permission) I'll get better results.

Quote from: T-Willard53% stated that they believed that violence never solved anything.

:killingme:

Quote from: T-Willard22% stated they would die before taking another human life, even to protect themselves.

53% stated that they believed that violence never solved anything.

38% stated the violence was never the answer to anything.

27% stated that there was never a situation that you cannot walk away from.

I'm not at all surprised - and I think the results you'll get at the university will actually be worse

Interesting counter-example that did surprise me; none of my Bible Study group had a problem at all with killing in self-defense or in the defense of a loved one.  Only around ten people so it's not statistically significant, but I suspect that Terry Pratchett is right - there's nothing quite a frightening as a truely good man

QuoteOut of 5,000 people polled, less than 10% would defend themselves if they thought they could get away.

How is "defend yourself" defined in this context? It has always seemed to me (and my MA senseis when I was a kid) that "be somewhere else" is the best defense you can muster.

One of my favorite parts about the new, morally-superior pacifist America is that, while they may not believe in violence or guns, they have no trouble at all sending people who do to deal with whatever threatens them.  Or annoys them, for that matter.

Apparently, our watchdogs are pretty effective, because we don't have anything close to a realistic view of personal conflict.

Quote from: James McMurrayHow is "defend yourself" defined in this context? It has always seemed to me (and my MA senseis when I was a kid) that "be somewhere else" is the best defense you can muster.

#14: Would you defend yourself with physical violence from an attacker who will not respond to reason, threats, or pleading if you could run away or otherwise remove yourself from the attacker's presence?

I'd answer that with a no as well. Not because I'm opposed to physical violence, but because that's what I was trained to do. Was there a companion question asking if they'd defend themselves with physical violence if they couldn't get away?

Quote from: T-WillardSo what did my poll show me?

That Americans are goddamn retards.

That's what happens when people live in a society that insulates them from the consequences of stupid beliefs and the need to take care of themselves.  People can believe all sorts of stupid things (e.g., katanas being able to cut through tanks) when being wrong doesn't have consequences and won't kill them.

Quote from: T-Willard#14: Would you defend yourself with physical violence from an attacker who will not respond to reason, threats, or pleading if you could run away or otherwise remove yourself from the attacker's presence?

Fuck no.

I should open up with the Dim Mak or some shit when his buddies are going to shiv me in the kidney the second I do something other than toss my wallet at him?  

I can get away, so lethal force is out of the question. (I should spend months in court and maybe years in prison?)

Your other points are true.  Young men are boastful and proud.  The average American hasn't had combat infantry training.  You're not shocking me here.  Jeff Cooper's been doing this rant since before Dien Bien Phu fell.

There are 300 million Americans now.  Our society is rich and stable and encourages specialization.  People can become unfathomably wealthy by mastering the ebb and flow of securities markets.  That violence is alien to so many is a sign that society is functioning.  (People's attitudes are shitty towards their protectors and that has to change.  We're in total agreement here.)

What are you getting at here?

Quote from: fonkaygarry(People's attitudes are shitty towards their protectors and that has to change.

It won't.  The overwhelming majority of people are somewhere between scared and terrified of interpersonal violence.  A few people aren't by nature, and some others can be trained around it, to a degree.  The people who hunker down while others do the fighting will come to mistrust their defenders as much as their aggressors, once the threat is removed.

Suddenly I feel like watching "The Magnificent Seven."

Quote from: T-Willard#14: Would you defend yourself with physical violence from an attacker who will not respond to reason, threats, or pleading if you could run away or otherwise remove yourself from the attacker's presence?

I think this question is a little... ambiguous is not quite the word I'm looking for, but answers to it will be difficult to interpret

In many styles of martial arts, including my own, every defense can be seen as an attack and every attack as a form of defense.  If I block an attack, full force, it will hurt and perhaps even break bones.  Many knife defenses involve turning the blade back towards the attacker, with potentially lethal consequences.

If I follow my training and back away while protecting myself, I'm removing myself from the attacker's presence while defending myself with physical violence - is that a "yes" or a "no"?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonI think this question is a little... ambiguous is not quite the word I'm looking for, but answers to it will be difficult to interpret

In many styles of martial arts, including my own, every defense can be seen as an attack and every attack as a form of defense.  If I block an attack, full force, it will hurt and perhaps even break bones.  Many knife defenses involve turning the blade back towards the attacker, with potentially lethal consequences.

If I follow my training and back away while protecting myself, I'm removing myself from the attacker's presence while defending myself with physical violence - is that a "yes" or a "no"?

It seems pretty unabmiguously about a "fight or flight" choice. A fighting retreat isn't "flight", so your answer is yes, you would use violence to defend yourself.

Well, I for one have no trouble killing, and if necessary, eating my fellow species members in the name of survival.  But then again, I'm a Pika, we're just wired that way.

I agree with your overall assessment, however.  Most Americans seem to be pretty much useless in lethal situations.  On the other hand I have two points.

One: the lower classes seem to be largely populated by criminals and near animals. Despicable as such individuals might be in civilized society, their value in violent era's might not be dismissed casually. I doubt your survey took into account the large, dispossessed urban poor... many of whom would notice very few changes in their lifestyle in the event of a zombie uprising.  Potentially exaggerated, and many of these individuals have few practical combat skills. Then again, ability in a fight is 80% psychology.

Two: it is impossible to accurately predict heroism. No one could say Audie Murphy would be Audie Murphy. Same with Alvin York.  That weedy vegitarian pacifist that looks like 98 lbs of walking meat to you might find his true calling defending his family and loved ones at any cost when faced with real, johnny on the spot violence.   That all American Golden Boy, national guardsman, UFC competitor, Fireman type? He might be all he looks to be, or he might freeze up in the face of the unknown and  be the first to fall. Combat, really... any survival situation... is called a crucible for a reason.

So. The numbers are bad. Not surprising, but bad.  But they may not reflect the whole truth either.  




Though I am getting a bit freaked out by Hastur's pimping his bible studies group as the ultimate survivors... sounds a little Waco if you know what I mean. :eek:

Quote from: SpikeThat weedy vegitarian pacifist that looks like 98 lbs of walking meat to you might find his true calling defending his family and loved ones at any cost when faced with real, johnny on the spot violence.

He definitely will if you attack him in Hollywood.

Quote from: James McMurrayHe definitely will if you attack him in Hollywood.

Not sure what you are implying James.. but let me remind you that Audie Murphy was something like 5'2" or something like that, and Alvin York tried to be a concientious objector.

Or I could point out that the people most likely to become terrorists in most of the world are college educated middle class intellectuals.  You know, white bread milquetoasts.

Discounting the fanatic religous nuts who have risen to prominance lately...


Ironical Edit: I was originally going to say Audie was 5'5", which according to the Wiki provided by T-willard was his actual height. Stupid pika, next time go with your first guess....