You can check out Run, Hide, Fight but thats more about survival than de-escalation.
And I was thinking of modeling an insect's eye for the camera. Whatever dye is used for bank robberies might work too.Well, I'm thinking a miniature lens would be worn somewhere on the clothing like those bigger security cameras I've seen advertised with some sort of a 360° field of vision. It would update images on a continuous loop locally on the person, say their smart phone's database, like a cockpit voice recorder. Then it would transmit the images when the owner or maybe the thief triggers it somehow. I'll leave the details to the inventor.So, it would be voluntary and the more participants, the better. Heck, everybody could just wear a fake lens and avoid the expense, like a fake decal in your window saying you have a security system when you don't.
An optional feature could be a stink bomb that sprays the perp with skunk oil, but I can see "Murphy" having a good time with that.
Situational awareness is useful in more activities than flying. I like scanning a crowd and seeing how many people are paying more attention to the phone in their hand than what’s going on around them.
That’s a subjective question best left for each person to answer for themself based on their beliefs and knowledge of the pertinent statutes.
Prevention starts with recognizing what you can and can’t control. There is no golden ticket that works in every avoidance scenario; the question you have to answer is whether or not you have the will to survive the scenario you are provided. Simply possessing a weapon is no guarantee of safety, neither is an elite-level of practice in use of force/deadly force scenarios.
Since you’re new here, I would suggest you go look at hindsight2020’s threads and responses. He is able to sound smart, offering thought provoking comments without demeaning everybody.Wrong again.
I tried, long before you posted it here yet tried again, just for you so lighten up buttercup. Watch the first 2 minutes of Steves video then subject yourself to the first 8 or so minutes of Mr Black's and see if you really despise pedanticism or just when someone disagrees with you. Watch them critically and you'll see his counters are not reasoned at all. Its either a comprehension deficiency or he Is a purposeful liar.
#1 He purposefully edited out the most pertinent comments Steve was referring to, the "shall not be infringed, zero gun law" stance yet Collins Iyare Idehen Jr. cries that that's not what the last comment, only there for a few seconds was saying. If he learned anything in law school it should be that using reductio ad absurdum is a valid debate tactic. Do you want a recently paroled murderer and rapist that lives next door to your daughter to possess a gun?
The second rebuttal is even less reasoned or pertinent or even cogent about absolutism, perhaps he can't comprehend an amendment or its process. So thats as far as I got.
Did you enjoy that type of shrieking to the verge of hyperventilating. I wouldn't watch that even if I did agree, couldn't stand Sam Kinison for long either. I dont agree with all that Steve said, but watch it yourself and see if you can find any lies or fallacies in his stance. Its OK if you dont agree or understand, but try disagreeing without being disagreeable.
And my Ilk, jealous? We are the ones that didn't have Fathers' that yelled lies and deflections at us, even in an argument, even if he was wrong, so we tend not to tolerate it from others.
:micdrop: