Quote of the day—Sean Sorrentino

Anti-social violence can be broken down into two categories, Resource crime and Process crime. A resource criminal is willing to kill you to get your stuff. A process criminal is willing to kill you in order to enjoy killing you. They have different motivations. If you give up your wallet to a resource criminal, you’re probably going to be ok. If you mistake a process criminal for a resource criminal and hand over your wallet, you’re still going to get killed because your wallet wasn’t what he was after.

Sean Sorrentino
October 21, 2011
Comment to The Myth of Giving them What They Want. Paraphrasing Facing Violence.
[Pacifists and those that proudly sniff they, “Want to create a society where you don’t need to carry a gun.” have a very narrow view on the wide range of human nature.

The mindsets of both those that would commit violence against us and that of our opponents are so alien that many of us simply cannot believe it is possible. But it is.

There exist, and probably will always exist, people who get pleasure from causing harm.

The only thing which can be done when such a person engages in violence against an innocent life is to do exactly what our anti-gun opponents say should not be done. Violence should begat violence.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Sean Sorrentino

  1. Joe, your writing is noticeably sloppier today. Is your health okay? Maybe it’s just virtual hypochondria, but I’m a little concerned. Language impairment is sometimes a CVE marker.

  2. I think one of the problems with trying to guess a criminal’s motive is that even they don’t know what they’ll do. Most of the thug-like criminals tend to be impulsive, they don’t formulate a clear plan. Heck, if they were thinking logically they probably wouldn’t be risking years in jail for whatever the Qwik-E-Mart has in the register in the first place. This isn’t like Ocean’s Eleven or something, where the heist is planned weeks in advance.

  3. If I get my way, I will live in a society where carrying a gun is considered a harmless eccentricity rather than either a necessity or an evil aberration. The problem isn’t in wanting a violence-free society, the problem is in calling to eliminate defensive violence first.

  4. Sean Sorrentino, so, meeting the violence of a resource criminal may or may not cause him to rethink his career choice, so it is laudable but essentially optional. By contrast, meeting the violence of a process criminal probably won’t cause him to rethink his career choice, but due to the nature of process criminal violence, meeting him violent act for violent act, and then some, is not merely laudable, but for a civilized society absolutely imperative, on the order of importance as becoming an informed voter, or teaching your children to be productive and constructive members of society.
    And I agree, the trouble is, how do you know which one you’re facing at 10 pm outside the piggly wiggly?

    Sevesteen, yes, it is the order of the types of violence they want to eliminate that is the problem. Coyotes are breaking into your dog kennel and fighting with your dogs. I think even the most doctrinaire pacifist recognizes that the way to stop the fighting is to whack some coyotes, not defang and declaw your stud dogs.
    I’ve often said that the problem with pacifists isn’t that they don’t have noble motives, its that they don’t understand there is violence for a good cause and violence for a bad cause. Essentially they recognize that sticking knives in people is wrong, so they demonstrate against hospitals and surgeons.

  5. I’ve been reading a lot from the “No Nonsense Self Defense” website recently, that made some interesting points about “pacifists” vs “violent people”.

    According to “Animal”, true pacifists aren’t afraid of violent people, and violent people tend to be at ease with them: such people won’t be picking fights, and they don’t use any form of violence to get what they want. There are a lot of people, however, that claim to be pacifists, but won’t hesitate to yell and scream and threaten to get what they want. Since they are violent people, though, they tend to attract other violent people–and some of those violent people won’t hesitate to resort to using physical violence.

    Reading this has caused me to recognize that I may be a little to violent in my behavior now and again: I need to do more to seek peace in my life, and to try not to resort to violence, ever, to get what I want. And I need to learn to recognize the signs of violence in others, so that I could either defuse the situation, or leave the area, or be ready for an attack.

    Having said this, I still recognize the duty to be armed, and prepared for those times when even being peaceful won’t work. Being a pacifist, and being prepared to use force–even lethal force–to protect yourself and others is not mutually exclusive. “Force” only becomes “violence” when you use it to get what you want, to the detriment of others.

    And no, I would *not* consider “gun control” nuts to be pacifists: forcibly disarming others at gunpoint, because you fear what they *might* do, is violence pure and simple. (Indeed, “Animal” goes through a lot explanation that you can’t hurt someone because they *might* do something–that kind of behavior pretty much guarantees that you’ll be going to prison.)

Comments are closed.