Many of our readers have breathed a sigh of relief since Trump was elected. But do we need no longer worry about the risks we did a year ago? Recent news in New York shows otherwise.
Imagine you are considering buying a used truck from me. You are aware I’ve been driving it on salty winter roads for at least eight years, maybe more. Have I washed the undercarriage of the truck, to prevent corrosion during all those years? Well, I finally washed it last year, and changed a few bolts that looked bad, so it should be good to go, right? If you bought this truck and figured that I solved the problem and the integrity of the truck is now sound, you’ll deserve all the misfortune that befalls you as the rusted heap breaks one part after another until it fails catastrophically.
Last October, America was faced with a choice of Hillary or Trump, Trump won, and folks like you and I breathed a sigh of relief. But I’ve previously published John Podesta’s quote from 2008 DNC strategy briefs, “Ensure that demographics is destiny.” Aside from concerns highlighted in New York about what sorts of people are coming to our country, Trump still hasn’t fixed the fiscal picture, the healthcare picture, or even the immigration picture despite his efforts. It’s hard when your own party suddenly finds a spine – to engage in full-throttle infighting. If only they’d found that spine eight years ago, maybe we wouldn’t be in such a fix. And if they weren’t putting their all into party infighting, maybe they’d actually accomplish something while America has handed them all the reins of power.
Trump is a good reason to breathe a sigh of relief, but to assume that we are now in the clear is foolishness. We’ve only been granted a temporary reprieve. As in the truck analogy, corrosion that was ongoing has been halted temporarily, but it has certainly not been cured and the structural damage done will continue to get worse until it is repaired.
Do We Need Truck Control?
Since the US election, we’ve read of many truck attacks across Europe. Typically, some adherent of “the religion of peace” acquires a large vehicle through legal means, deliberately plows over many pedestrians, and occasionally hops out at the end with heavy weaponry (despite strict gun control laws) and continues the killing spree.
The New York fellow apparently only got out with fake or ineffective weapons (paintball and airsoft, last I heard, but who knows if that will be the final story). So despite America’s “lack of sensible gun control laws” we did not have an issue with a mass shooting spree following the use of deadly “attack truck.” Maybe because the perpetrator was afraid that all those “gun-toting, bible-hugging” Americans would have gunned him down promptly for his crimes.
Will we hear any outcry for “common sense truck control laws” to prevent other adherents of “the religion of peace” legally renting a large vehicle and playing GTA with real people? Or is attack truck the way of the future for terrorists and mass murderers?
What to Do?
It was interesting to see an article today over on Peter Grant’s blog highlighting how to minimize risk in light of the NY attack. He links to an old self defense article by firearms instructor John Farnam, building on the Jeff Cooper color code alertness principle.
Farnam highlights four layers of response to avoid being a target in the first place, and Peter Grant’s quotation of him all comes from the first point.
- Nonattendance – don’t be where the danger is in the first place.
- Functional Invisibility – if you are in a danger zone, don’t be notable and don’t stick out as a prime target.
- Deselection – if a predator does notice you, make sure you are the sort of hard target that will lead to him quickly changing his mind about engaging you.
- Disengagement – if confrontation occurs, try to end it at the lowest level as quickly as possible. No point in shooting if threats or loud words will stop the escalation.
Peter Grant highlights details from the first point about not being in the danger zone in the first place, and then expands on it based on his rich life experience in military and civilian danger zones in various nations. He recommends the following:
I urge you, dear readers, to evaluate your own risk profile based on where you live, potential flashpoints for crime and/or terrorism and/or confrontation in your immediate vicinity, and the nature of culture and society in your area. Some places will be far more prone to such risks than others, of course. For example:
- If you live in inner-city Chicago or Baltimore, your chances of becoming the victim of violent crime are exponentially higher than someone like myself, living in small-town Texas.
- If you live in a place that’s become an icon of all America stands for, such as New York City or Washington DC, you’re almost certainly at greater risk from terrorists (who want to attack such icons because of the publicity they will generate) than those of us living in less symbolic locations.
- If you live in an area with a recent history of political volatility, such as Berkeley, CA or Charlottesville, VA, your chances of running into violent political demonstrations are significantly higher than someone living in an average farming community out in the Midwest.
There’s much more good stuff, both in Peter Grant’s post as well as the original post he links to and all readers should check it out if they want to be prepared.
Overall, I found it noteworthy because a survival-minded fellow who has no connection or association with us is also giving serious advice that risk vectors today that put you and your family in physical danger in at least three different ways all have to do with being in a big city.
As I sit and read in the Redoubt, I double-check whether any of these types of risk apply to my area and the answers are “no, no, and no.” For now, being in low-population-density rural America keeps me at the lowest risk engagement level, “nonattendance.”
If you’re not in the Redoubt yet, what are you waiting for? Flee the city.