From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Model Mugging (long)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:39:41 GMT

In article <MHIRSCH.92Sep29163848@atomic.princeton.edu> mhirsch@atomic.princeton.edu (Michael Hirsch) writes:
>FC> Since I'm the one who started this philosophical tangent, I guess I
>FC> should clear up what I meant about violence being a "normal" part
>FC> of life. I did _not_ mean it was, necessarily, a _frequent_ event,
>FC> just that it was part of the way the world works and violent 
>FC> confrontations occasionally occur. As a analogy, earthquakes (or the
>FC> risk of earthquakes) are a normal part of life in California. Even though
>FC> major ones are extremely rare, no one goes around afterwards saying
>FC> things like "I never though something like this would happen to me."

>It's clear you aren't from California.  That is what probably 90% of
>the people I know _do_ go around saying.  The really clever ones say
>"I knew this would happen, but I didn't really think it would happen,"
>whatever that means.

Well, I was living in Berkeley when the 1989 earthquake hit. I heard
very few people saying they didn't think an earthquake like that would
happen (though alot of people wished they'd been better prepared...)

>FC> Similarly, violent confrontations are rare (judging by my and my
>FC> friend's experiences, I'd say someone in the East Bay would wind
>FC> up in such a situation only once every two or three years.)

>Far less, I would say.  I've lived in the East Bay for about 20 of my
>30 years and not had a violent confrontation except in elementary
>school.  Maybe in Fresno...  ;-)

Well, among myself and four close friends (for a collective 23 years
living in south Berkeley and north Oakland), we've had 2 muggings,
1 assault, 6 attempted muggings or assualts and one "hot prowl"
burglary. That ignores simply _witnessing_ knifings, etc...

>FC> However, I don't consider the infrequency or the "unfairness" of
>FC> this to be a ration excuse to pretend such situations won't
>FC> happen.

>No, but it is a reason to decide to ignore them.  I think it is quite
>rational to say "I would rather get mugged once every 3 years than
>spend 6 hours a week learning to defend myself."

Sure, that could be a very reasonable decision. My remarks were 
directed at people who think that violence is "wrong" and therefore
they "shouldn't" have to deal with it. "Should" doesn't have much
to do with it, since such situations occur regardless of their
inherent morality. This doesn't have anything to do with those
who actually look at the risks and benifits, and conclude that worrying
about self-defence isn't time/cost effective.

>I think people who say that they would rather not learn to fight
>because they think fighting is wrong are making a perfectly good
>decision, just not the one I am making.  They have chosen between two
>evils, and decided that being relatively defenseless is better than
>living a life in a manner they oppose.  It seems to me that they
>should be admired for the depth of their feeling rather than
>castigated for their stubborness.

This certainly applys to those who _have_ considered their choices. But
there are a great many (probably a majority of those who consider
fighting, even in self-defence, "wrong"), who have not really thought
it through: They are simply reacting on an emotional level to the
idea of violence, without considering the possible merits of self-defence.
Not only do I find this a poor attitude, but it also leads to the
annoying sort of laws common in, for example, California that are
rather hostile towards self-defence.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder