The Law of the Gunfighter

Somebody may be pulling my leg here, but I don’t think so. I’ve just contracted with a subscriber to a site where writers and clients meet, to write a seventy-five page “chapbook” on the subject of “applied thinking.” That last was the client’s choice of terms, by the way. I liked it. The contact results, according further to the client, from my articles having to do with SWAT and bodyguard tactics, judo, shooting and the like. Rob says - agreeing with me, by the way – that anyone who expects to have to fight for his life “had damned well better” – his choice of terminology, again – be able to think clearly.

Six additional clients have signed on, and I’ve got a project. I think that’s a pretty good sign that I’m not being put on.

And it’s become colossally clear that many – most, I would contend – people can’t do that. Think productively, I mean. Were I asked, I’d say that the principle reason beyond the obvious, that of today’s poor education, is emotionally derived bias. How that happens is another matter, one for the sociologists.

A case in point where the emotional bias is concerned is the latest spate of reaction on website like Truthout.com to the continuing Hezbollah attack on Israel. The Israelis are killing innocent civilians. That’s it. Subject discussed entirely.

End of cogent thought, too. All further comment (and there’ll be a bunch of that), in other words, will be a repetition of what went before. The only thing of interest in any of it is the astonishing bias displayed by the writers. There is, to hear them tell it, no redeeming factor in anything the Israelis have done or are doing. None!

A while back, one writer – “Greta” – finally (I had to insist repeatedly) answered my question concerning what she thought would happen were the Israelis to disarm by saying there would be peace. Then, when Israel had returned the Gaza Strip to Palestine, only to have a raid from Gaza seize and hold hostage one of its soldiers and begin taking rocket fire from there, she somehow failed to mention it in her latest diatribe reporting Palestinian casualties.

One might ask people like this - assuming that two wrongs still don’t make a right, and that the desire for self-preservation is not only natural but a natural right – what any other group of persons – including the towering intellects of the far left – might do, were they fired on from the next house, block, town or country.

Let’s say, for instance, that you’re walking down the street one day, and somebody starts shooting at you from a crowd of people. You’re in the middle of the street or some open space, and you’ve got no place to hide. You’re armed. What do you do?

D-u-u-u-u-h!

But emotion does not check with reason before it energizes the mouth. And therein lies mankind’s biggest problem. Yesterday, at our customary week end get-together a friend – who is very anti-Israel – answered something I observed concerning the present situation in Lebanon with a comment concerning “Israeli violence.” ISRAEL shouldn’t be violent. More, and for that reason, the United States shouldn’t help them.

My friend and I often agree to disagree, and change the subject. But his view is both an interesting one, and parallels that of the folks on TO and elsewhere internet-wise. You should pardon the expression.

For many years, one ploy I would use in an argument like this one was the one I just used. Ask the arguer to put himself in the shoes of the opposing viewpoint. What would he do, were he an Israeli?

It tells anyone like me what he wants to know, which is whether the discussion is worth continuing. On my website, I pose it as a condition of debate: what does it take to prove you wrong? If you can’t be proven wrong, then there’s no point in my debating you, is there? If you what you believe can’t BE wrong, then it’s a religion, not a science (and, interestingly enough, atheism is a religion on those grounds). Science can prove things, and settle arguments; religion can’t

So, you ask, what are the rules? Well, they are simple – and the mankind has known and agreed upon them for centuries. There’s even a name for the science – forensics. Get a bit more precise – or general, for that matter – and you have epistemological forensics.

The science IS that, of course, so there isn’t room to discuss the whole of it here, but certain basic of the basic principles destroy everything being raved by the Palestine-Arab extremist apologists. First, like I said, two wrongs don’t make a right. You don’t prove yourself correct - or further your argument, even – by proving the other side wrong. And, a corollary, he’s not wrong because he’s a son of a bitch; or even because he’s been wrong before.

That, logically, is it for about eighty percent of the Palestine side of the latest argument. Even a son of a bitch has a right to shoot back at the guy who shot at him.

Next, we have the matter of restraint. The Israeli reaction was too severe. All the non-combatants very far from the action agree. Surprise. The question came up the other day, right here in Kingsville, Texas. A group of kids having decided to have some fun by tormenting and terrorizing other people got shot at by a guy they hit with a shower of eggs. Unfortunately, one of the kids got hit.

Ooooh, the outrage! Especially from the kid’s parents. Asked about the matter, I drew some of outrage’s fire, too. From my own wife. I said the person who incited the incident by throwing eggs was responsible for whatever – including the shot – happened. When I said, “There but for the grace of God go I,” it didn’t help.

Yeah, yeah, YEAH! Bullshit. There’s an old, old rule of civil law – “Volenti non fit injuria” - that says a person trespassing accepts whatever he finds there. You take all mankind that way, too. If you give the finger to everybody who displeases you, you’d better be able to accept whatever that finger triggers.

I was an orphan, and while recovery from polio kept my incredibly puny, the victim of every bully in the neighborhood. When I learned the judo where I now hold sixth degree black belt rank, the experience resulted in my perfecting and practicing one particular move until it was near perfection. Grab my shirt or start you hand toward me suddenly, you find yourself on your back and in a wristlock. It’s a conditioned reflex – no thought, no deciding, involved at all. None. YOU pulled the trigger.

Put you hand in a hole to see what’s in there . . . well, it’s up to you; but what you find in there is YOUR problem, too – not the fault of whatever it was.

Then, too, there’s the rule of the wild. If you don’t want to be taken for a wolf, don’t run with them. There’s a corollary there, too. If you don’t want me to treat you like I treat my enemies, don’t announce that you’re my enemy. You go around with wearing a tee-shirt that says, “Death to Hal,” I’m going to figure you’re my enemy. When I see your hand coming toward me suddenly, I may not offer much restraint. When you’re on your back on the ground in my wristlock, don’t expect me to let you up and dust you off. Expect to lose the arm.

And, finally, if you don’t want me to mistake you for my enemy, don’t run around with people who wear that “Death to Hal” tee-shirt. If your friend makes my gunfighters reflexes think he’s going for his gun, my bullet may hit you after it goes through him. Use your head.

That’s it, the logic of the fighter. I wouldn’t expect anyone of the wimp metrosexual male persuasion to understand that, of course. They reason with talk, illogical statements like – well, go have a look. You’ll see my point.

And who’s right? Well, that’s easy. Just put yourself in the position of first one side, then the other. What would you do?

That’s a complete experiment, and the result will be correct.

Unless you’re biased.