Quote:
To me, the point of the story was that criminals are becoming more brazen and dangerous, and that viewers should think about how they are going to respond. I join the reporters in thinking that the 10 year old girl did pretty well, but I didn't really feel like they condemned the armed homeowners who defended themselves. With or without a pistol in your hand, an early 911 call stands the best chance of getting someone else there who is going to be on your side.
In this forum, we preach to the choir when we say that a phone shouldn't be our only defense, but for some people it is, and a lot of people haven't given a moment's thought about what else they would need to do to survive such a scenario. If that report causes a few people to consider such things, it is a good thing. I didn't find the report to be particularly offensive or objectionable.
|
The old saying goes "half of life is just showing up". This is true. But it is also the half of life that everyone does whether they try or not. The other half of life is where the action is. And the opportunity.
It is in the DNA of humans to run and hide in the face of danger. No one has to tell anyone that. This is the "just showing up" part. Since no one has to tell a person to run away, I automatically look with suspicion on any "informative" news story that feels the need to reinforce it. Why do they avoid any advice on anything but running away? What might be their motive?
A truly informative piece by ABC would have established that after you've run away as best you can, you should be prepared to continue to defend yourself with whatever you have, whether that is a baseball bat, other improvised weapon, a knife or a firearm. The piece would have pointed out that if you have to improvise a weapon after running away you haven't been as thorough as you might have been in your planning. Improvisation implies an oversight. Planning to continue defending yourself with weapons would be in addition to the "just showing up" part.
Since advice about actual weapons was left out of the ABC "informative" piece I'm forced to include that such an omission in a piece ABOUT SURVIVING AN ATTACK means that ABC is of the opinion that defending yourself with weapons against attack isn't a good idea.
This is about what I expect from ABC. Which is why I don't get my information about surviving attacks, or doing anything else, from them.
I don't think the piece was offensive or objectionable. People are free to make themselves easy prey. But I see an agenda here that I don't agree with.