Most People Don't Bluff Worth a Damn

I found this article at www.nononsenseselfdefense.com, these excerpts seem very topical in view of events in Regina and Saskatoon in recent days.


Marc grew up in the streets of Los Angeles. His first stepfather was a Mexican who survived growing up in East LA. In both the barrio where his stepfather had grown up and the ethnically mixed neighborhood where Marc was raised weapons were a part of life. You had them, you carried them, and you used them. Amazingly enough one of the first lessons Marc was taught by his stepfather had to do with responsibility of your actions:
"Don't carry a knife unless you are willing to pull it. Don't pull it unless you are willing to use it. Don't use it unless you are willing to kill with it. And don't kill unless you are willing to spend the rest of your life in prison -- or die."
This philosophy was ingrained in him. From the second you picked up that weapon and put it in your pocket, you knew this was not a game. It was life and death. And you made that decision calmly and rationally. With a weapon, you were operating to a higher standard because the repercussions were far worse. When you have the ability to take a life, you cannot give into to momentary impulses and whims of ego. Now, granted, in the heat and passion of youth, that standard was not always met. With age, maturity and professional experience, the wisdom of that saying proved true to Marc again and again.
If you have a weapon you have to abide by higher standards. And meeting that standard is pretty much the crux of the whole gun-control debate.
A weapon is not for bluffing It's not about winning, it's about surviving. And before you pick up a weapon you need to know the difference.
Can you, in a moment of calm reflection, decide that you are willing to take another human life in order to protect your life or those of your loved ones. And live with the consequences for the rest of your life?
Can you make this decision, knowing full well that if you pull the trigger it would destroy life as you know it?
Because that is what I am talking about.
Unfortunately, most people don't know the difference between winning and surviving. "Winning" is an emotional, ego-based impulse that you have to "prove something to someone else" (i.e., that they are wrong, or that they messed with the wrong person, or that they don't have 'power' over you, etc., etc.). In short, "winning" is about fighting to prove you are right(1).
Whereas "surviving" isn't about being right, it's about being alive. It is knowing that when you pull that trigger, everything you might have thought you would "win" will be destroyed. It is the willingness to throw aside all emotional motivation for the fight, every rule and standard you normally live your life by and do whatever is necessary in order to see the sun rise tomorrow.
Most people don't realize this difference and end up trying to "win" by displaying a weapon in order to "scare away" danger. Unfortunately, this is "bluffing." And as in poker, your bluff can be called.
Lt. Colonel David Grossman in his book, On Killing, postulates that the old "fight or flight" model is flawed for same-species interaction in that it doesn't include two other important alternatives. These other options are "posturing" and "submission." The relevance of these cannot be understated as it fills in a serious hole in the old model.
It is most often through posturing (threat display) that we hope to drive away or cause others to submit (so we "win"). Now whether this is to gain self-esteem by intimidating others or because we are desperately hoping that our display will frighten another off so we don't have to physically fight doesn't really matter. Posturing plays an important role in many, if not most, conflicts.
Posturing can either be a legitimate display of danger (like a rattlesnake's buzz or a dog's hackles going up before a fight) or it can be a bluff to make the bluffer look too big to attack (like a cockatoo's crest or a cat fluffing and arching).
The problem is most people can't bluff worth a damn.
It is not uncommon for a person who does not feel their display is working to increase the level and degree of posturing. When you have two like-minded people engaged in conflict, posturing behavior can escalate out of control. It is literally like two people in a poker game locked into an endless round of bluffing by raising the ante, hoping that the other person will decide to fold. They become so enmeshed in this spiral, they feel they cannot "back down."
Unfortunately, it is also extremely common for people feeling threatened to pull a weapon and display it to show exactly how dangerous they are. It is almost as if the person were saying, "See how dangerous I am!?! Now, quit threatening me and go away!"
This is flawed thinking in both cases, especially if it is in the middle of a heated and emotional argument. It is common in emotional situations for the person, whom the display is supposed to scare away, to instead to increase his threat display. This causes the other person to escalate as well.
Quite literally, if the person the bluffer is trying to scare away doesn't scare, the bluffer will try to escalate it further. And in this mindset, there is only one way to go from brandishing a weapon if the other the person doesn't back off. This is quite literally why the most common -- and stupidest -- last words of people shot in these circumstances is "You ain't got the guts (to pull the trigger)." Don't laugh and don't think we're making it up. It is true.
From an outside perspective, it may seem incredible. But for people caught up in having to "win," this is a common response to the increased posturing via a weapon by the other party. It happens -- a lot. It is equally unbelievable that someone waving a gun around threatening to kill someone a second before is now standing there in shock because he just shot someone. But that too happens -- a lot. In the heat of the moment all sorts of stupid things make sense to the participants, it's only afterwards that reality comes crashing back in, but by then it is too late.
Furthermore, if someone is brandishing a weapon in hopes of scaring a violent person away, her body language is going to be significantly different than someone who will, without hesitation, pull the trigger to stop an attacker.
Here's the problem: A violent person knows the difference. While the latter will usually convince him not to try anything, the former often will enrage him so much that he attacks. And unfortunately, there is often hesitation to pull the trigger when the bluff, doesn't work which is all it takes for an attacker to overwhelm someone.
Which brings us back to the "childhood lesson:" Don't pull a weapon if you aren't willing to use it. If you are relying on it to scare someone away so you don't have to use it, you shouldn't have one.