Self-defense methods are difficult to evaluate unless the threat is adequately understood. The first part of my book showcase how most Americans misunderstand their most likely violent crime threat. More specifically, they assume their violent crime threat is a stranger who is an armed violent criminal who will confront them in a public location, such as a parking garage.
When you don’t clearly understand the threat, you can make bad self-defense choices. For example, a person’s fear of being victimized by violent crime might be so intense that they decide to live their life out in a personal bomb shelter buried in their backyard. However, based on the violent crime rates in America against people who can afford a personal bomb shelter, this fear is unjustified as the threat isn’t a likely one.
However, if a 24-hour Purge was being instituted, like in the movies, or if bands of disease-ridden zombies were roaming the countryside looking for brains, living in your personal bomb shelter may be the best defense against those threats. In short, a defense method for one threat may not make any sense, but the same defense against a different threat may make a lot of sense.
As I point out in my book, however, there is a common objection even when you understand the threat. This example would be: “Roves of disease-ridden zombies are not likely, but if they do occur, would you rather be in a personal bomb shelter or not?” The objection would boil down to: “There are no downsides to living in a personal bomb shelter. Therefore, even if roves of disease-ridden zombies are not likely, you should stay in your bomb shelter because any possibility of disease-ridden zombies is too great to ignore.”
Obviously, the objection to this line of thought is to attack the sentence: “There are no downsides to living in a personal bomb shelter.” On the contrary, it would seem to be that there are considerable downsides. Imagine living a life devoid of physical contact. Imagine not being able to help the people you care about physically. Life as only a spectator to the people you care about would be horrible.
But you are in luck. You just won the multi-billion-dollar Powerball. Now, you can build a bomb shelter resembling a small city. Complete with hospitals, clubs, restaurants, parks, and it can be self-sustaining – you’ll never have to open the bomb shelter door. Now, you can invite family, extended family, friends, and their friends. However, the night before work starts on the shelter-metropolis, some questions pop into your head. How do I ensure there are no violent crime threats within our shelter-metropolis? If I make any mistakes in vetting people, is my violent crime threat greater inside my locked shelter-metropolis than outside of it? Should I allow weapons? If there are no weapons for the physically disadvantaged, how would they protect themselves from those who are bigger and stronger?
These questions have a lot in common with the injurious violent crime threats ordinary civilians in America face. Injurious aggravated assault looks a lot like domestic violence. Injurious robbery by people you know at a location you feel comfortable is about as common as being robbed by strangers in public areas. Rape is almost always perpetrated by someone you know and happens in a place you feel comfortable. Injurious violent crime for ordinary civilians is very personal, much like the people you would invite to your shelter-metropolis.