Sunday, August 09, 2015
Why two exceptions?
This picture from a brushfire west of Spokane shows dramatically why you should create a defensible space. An aerial view of a green island amid a black burned sea.
I added this to previous item showing a NON-defensible space, but this one is so dramatic that it stirred a broader thought about defensible spaces.
The authorities correctly recommend self-defense in exactly TWO areas. Fire and biological viruses.
Fire authorities give correct instructions for creating a defensible space against fire. They enforce the rules by stating clearly that you shouldn't expect the firemen to help if you haven't taken the proper steps on your own.
Public health authorities give correct instructions for creating a defensible space against viruses. Vaccination is enforced by schools and (in a few extreme cases) by police.
In ALL other situations the authorities require total vulnerability and HARSHLY PUNISH self-defense. You can't use encryption to form a defensible space against hacking and snooping. You can't use effective insecticides. You're not allowed to stop a burglar. Cops are not allowed to shoot back when a Vibrant thug attacks. You can't protect your savings against confiscation. You can't carry anything aboard an aircraft. We refuse to defend our own borders against invading hordes, giving them special privileges instead. Soldiers can't carry guns on military bases. Schools can't form defensible spaces against mass shooters. Christians can't form defensible spaces against immorality.
You must simply hold still and die.
What's different about fire authorities and public health authorities? Why the exceptions? Are they simply slow to get the message, or do they have an ulterior motive?
Labels: defensible spaces
¶ 2:58 AM
